Civ 


MOSES 


AND 


HIS  RECENT  CRITICS, 


EDITED  BY^ 


Talbot  W/ Chambers. 


NEW  YORK : 

FUNK    &    WAGNALLS, 

18  AND  20  AsTOR  Place. 

1889. 


Bntered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  ia  tbeyear  1887, 

By  FUNK  &  WAGNALLS, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington,  D.  C 


FUNK   &  WAGNALLS, 

18  and  20  Astor  Place, 

NEW  YORK 


CONTENTS. 


The  Baptist,  the  Congregational,  the  Episcopalian,  the  Lu- 
theran, the  Methodist,  the  Presbyterian  (North  and  South), 
and  the  Reformed  (Dutch)  Churches  are  represented  in  the 
writers  of  these  Essays.  While  all  agree  in  their  general  view 
of  the  subject,  yet  each  is  responsible  only  for  what  he  himself 
has  written. 

I.  Introductory  Historical  Sketch  of  Pentateuchal  Criti- 
cism.—Dr.  T.  W.  Chambers 5 

II.  The  Hebrew  Religion  not  a  Natural  Development. — 
Prof.  Gardiner,  of  Theological  Seminary,  Middle- 
town,  Conn 30 

III.  Analysis  of  the  Codes.— Prof.  Bissell,  of  Theologi- 

cal Seminary,  Hartford 65 

IV.  Pentateuchal  Analysis.— Prof.  Green,  of  Princeton.  101 
V.  Testimony  of  the  Pentateuch  to  Itself,  Direct  and  In- 
direct.—Prof.  ScHODDE,  of  Capital  University , Ohio.  139 

VI.  Testimony  of  the  Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles. — 

Prof.  Beecher,  of  Auburn  Theological  Seminary.  .  173 
VII.  Testimony  of  the  Books  of  Chronicles.— Prof.  M.  S. 

Terry,  Illinois 211 

VIII.  Testimony  of  the  Prophetical  (and  Poetical)  Books. — 

Prof.  Harman,  of  Dickinson  College,  Carlisle,  Pa.  247 
IX.  Bearings  of  the  New  Hypothesis  on  Questions  of  Bib- 
lical Theology,  Inspiration,  and  the  authority  of  the 
Bible  generally.— Prof.  Dwinell,  Pacific  Theologi- 
cal Seminary,  Oakland,  Cal 277 

X.  Credulity  or  Faith,  or  the  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hy- 
potheses.—Prop.  Streibert,  Gambler,  O.  .        .  307 
XI.  Validity  and  Bearing  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ  and 

His  Apostles.— Prof.  Hemphill,  of  Columbia,  S.  C.  345 
X. :    A  Reasonable  Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Penta- 
teuch.—Prof.   Osgood,  of    Rochester    Theological 
Seminary ....  377 


SUMMARY  OF  THE  ESSAY. 


1.  Introductory. 

2.  Ancient  Opinion. 

8.  View  of  Dr.  Astruc. 

4.  Tiie  Same  enlarged  by  Eichhorn. 

5.  The  Fragmentary  Theory— Geddes  and  Vater. 

6.  The  Supplementary  Theory— Bleek,  Tuch. 

7.  Hupfield's  Opposition. 

8.  Reactionary  Works— Knobel  and  Keil. 

9.  Documentary  Theory — Popper  and  Graf. 

10.  Its  Constituent  Elements. 

11.  Its  Relation  to  History. 

12.  The  Three  Codes. 

13.  Their  Differences  from  Each  Other  and  from  Their 

Surroundings. 

14.  The  Question  at  Issue. 

15.  The  Plan  of  this  Series  of  Essays. 

16.  Resume  of  Objections  to  the  Modern  View  of  the 

Subject. 

17.  The    Conservative    View — What   it    Denies   and 

what  it  Admits. 


AN    HISTORICAL    SKETCH. 
I.  This  essay  claims  to  be  nothing  more  than 
a  sketch.     It  avoids    details   as  far  as    possible, 
and  seeks  merely  to  indicate  the  main  line  along 
which  scholars  have  proceeded  in  their  investiga- 
tions into  the   origin  and  formation   of  the  first 
portion  of  the  Old  Testament.     The  compilation 
has  been  made  from  various  sources,  and  the  lan- 
guage of  others  has  been  freely  used  wherever  it 
seemed    advisable.     Even   such   a   rapid    outline 
may  be  useful  to  persons  not  familiar  with  the 
subject,  in  enabling    them  to     follow  with  ease 
and  intelligence  the   further    discussions  in    the 
succeeding  essays.     The  importance  of  the   sub- 
ject cannot  well  be  over  estimated.      The  Scrip- 
tures are   a  complete  whole,  with  a  beginning,  a 
middle  and  an  end,  the  result  being  an  historical 
revelation  of  the  will  of  God  and  his  relations  to 
men.     Its  various  parts  are  so  closely  interlocked 
together  that  none  can  be  removed  without  seri- 
ous damage  to  the  rest.     Especially  does  this  hold 
good  of  the  early  portions  which  in  position  re- 
semble the  base  of  a  pyramid.     If  this  be  taken 
away,  what  is  left  is  a  column  floating  in  the  air. 
The  certitude  oh  which  Christian   faith  rests  is 
gone,  and  men  are  given  over  to  a  calculation  of 
probabilities  in  reference  to  their  most  important 
interests.     This  is  a  sad  change  from  the  tone  of 
assured  and  absolute  conviction  which  character- 


6  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

ized  New  Testament  believers.  They  knew  in 
whom  they  had  believed,  and  were  persuaded 
that  they  had  not  followed  cunningly  devised 
fables.  It  is  well  worth  while  therefore  to  con- 
sider whether  there  is  any  real  ground  for  depart- 
ing from  the  steadfast  belief  of  all  past  genera- 
tions in  regard  to  the  Mosaic  record. 

2.  In  the  last  chapter  of  Luke's  gospel,  our 
Lord,  referring  to  the  Old  Testament,  calls  it,  "the 
law  of  Moses,  the  prophets  and  the  psalms."  The 
last  of  these  stood  for  the  poetical  books  in  gen- 
eral, the  second  for  the  histories  and  prophecies 
from  Joshua  down,  while  the  first  was  appropri- 
ated to  the  opening  books  of  the  volume,  now 
generally  known  as  the  Pentateuch  (the  five-fold 
book),  a  name  which  it  has  borne  ever  since  the 
time  of  Origen.  This  portion  is  referred  to  by 
Nehemiah  (viii:i,  2,  3;  ix:3;  xiii:i)  as  the  Law,  or 
the  Book  of  the  Law,  and  as  such  it  has  been  re- 
garded and  styled  by  the  Jews  of  all  ages.  Its 
division  into  separate  books  is  as  old  as  the  Sep- 
tuagint  version,  but  how  much  older  cannot  be 
determined.  The  historian  Josephus  in  his  work 
against  Apion,  speaking  of  the  books  which  are 
justly  believed  to  be  divine,  says  that  "  five  of 
them  belong  to  Moses,  which  contain  his  laws  and 
the  traditions  of  the  origin  of  mankind  till  his 
death  "  (i:  8).  This  opinion,  with  which  every- 
thing in  the  New  Testament  is  in  accord,  was 
accepted  by  Jews  and  Christians  alike  for  many 
centuries.  Discordant  voices  are  not  heard  until 
after  the   Reformation   save  from   a  few  obscure 


Pentateuchal  Criticism.  7 

heretics.  But  in  the  latter  half  of  the  17th  century 
the  Mosaic  authorship  was  boldly  assailed  by 
HOBBES  in  his  Leviatha7i  (chap,  xxxiii),  1 561;  by 
Peyrerius,  who  afterwards  became  a  Romanist, 
in  his  book  on  the  Pre- Adamites^  1655  ;  by  the 
distinguished  Spinoza  in  his  Tracta.  TJieoL-Polit. 
1670;  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Richard  SiMON  in 
his  Critical  History  of  the  Old  Testament ,  1678, 
and  by  the  Arminian,  Clericus,  in  an  anonymous 
work,  Sentimens  sur  V Hist.  Critique  du  V.  T.y 
which,  however,  he  afterwards  retracted.  But 
none  of  these  attacks  influenced  public  opinion  in 
any  notable  degree. 

3.  Effective  modern  criticism  begins  with  the 
work  of  Francis  AsTRUC,  Conjectures  sur  les 
Memoirs^  etc.,  which  appeared  in  1753.  Astruc  was 
the  son  of  a  Protestant  minister,  w^ho,  however,  on 
the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes,  conformed 
to  Rome.  He  studied  medicine,  attained  emi- 
nence as  a  practitioner,  and  became  professor  of 
anatomy  in  the  College  of  France,  holding  which 
position  he  died  in  1766.  In  his  work  he  first 
brought  out  fully  and  distinctly  the  fact  which 
had  previously  arrested  the  attention  of  others, 
that  there  was  a  peculiar  use  of  the  divine  names 
in  Genesis,  viz.,  that  in  some  portions  the  name 
Elohini  (God)  was  predominately  used,  and  in 
others  the  name  Jehovah  (Lord).  From  this  and 
other  circumstances  he  concluded  that  the  docu- 
ments employed  by  Moses  in  compiling  the  book 
consisted  of  two  great  memoirs  and  nine  lesser 
ones.     As   the    latter   were    little  used  the  main 


Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


records  were  the  so-called  Elohim  and  Jehovah 
documents.  Astruc's  analysis  of  Genesis  has 
been  criticised  as  mechanical  and  defective,  but  in 
its  main  features  has  been  generally  accepted. 

4.  The  subject  was  taken  up  and  carried  still 
farther  by  J.  G.  EiCHHORN  in  his  Introduction 
to  the  Old  Testament,  which  appeared  in  1780.  He 
applied  to  the  Scriptures  what  he  called  the 
Higher  Criticism,  which  does  not  mean,  as  some- 
times has  been  supposed,  something  superior  in 
nature  and  methods  to  other  criticism,  but  simply 
that  presupposing  the  precise  text  of  any  book 
and  the  exegesis  of  its  language  as  already  settled, 
it  goes  on  to  examine  its  integrity  and  author- 
ship, the  mutual  relation  of  its  parts,  and  its  lit- 
erary features  as  a  whole.  To  Astruc's  argument, 
founded  upon  the  recurrence  of  the  divine  names, 
he  added  another  based  on  differences  of  style. 
He  arranged  the  first  fifty-two  chapters  of  the 
Pentateuch  under  two  heads,  each  representing  a 
different  document,  although  in  some  rare  cases 
other  authorities  had  been  used.  Eichhorn,  how- 
ever, as  well  as  Astruc,  held  firmly  to  what  was  the 
well-nigh  universal  opinion  of  their  day,  that 
Moses,  however  various  the  materials  he  employed, 
was  the  real  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  bating  of 
course  certain  trifling  editorial  notes  inserted  here 
and  there. 

5.  A  new  view  was  taken  by  Dr.  Alexander 
Geddes,  a  Roman  Catholic  divine,  who  published 
in  London  in  1800  Critical  Remarks  on  the  He- 
brew Scriptures,  in  which  he  took  the  ground  that 


Pentateuchal  Criticism.  9 

the  Pentateuch  is  composed  of  a  number  of  frag- 
ments which  have  neither  a  logical  nor  a  chronolog- 
ical connection.     Thus  was  started  what  is  known 
as   the   Fragmentary   Theory,    which,  of   course, 
scouts  the  idea  of   any   orderly  or  self-consistent 
progress  running   through  the  Five  Books.     This 
view  was  adopted  by  J.  S.  Vater,  who  advocated 
it  with  warmth  in  his  Commentary  upon  the  Pen- 
tateuch (1802-5).     It  was   still  further  elaborated 
by   A.    T.    HartMANN,  who   issued    in    1831   his 
Historico-Critical  Enquiries  concerning  the  Forma- 
tion, etc.,  of  the  Books  of  Moses,  He  aimed  to  show 
by  an  elaborate  argument  that  these  books  origi- 
nated in  a  number  of  comparatively  insignificant, 
more    or   less   mythical,    post-Mosaic    fragments, 
each  of  which  formed  the   nucleus  of  a  larger  col- 
lection ;  and  that    these   were    gradually  brought 
together,  and  at  length  took  on  the  shape  and  the 
arrangement  of  the  present  Pentateuch.     But  this 
theory  is  now   almost    universally  abandoned,  be- 
cause it  fails  to  give  any   explanation  of  the  pecu- 
liar fact  that  the  Books  reveal  an  undeniable  unity 
of  design  and  gradual  course  of  orderly   develop- 
ment.    Such  things  do  not  and  cannot  spring  up 
by  chance. 

6.  This  circumstance  led  to  the  invention  of 
another  theory,  which  has,  with  great  propriety, 
received  the  name  of  Supplementary.  This  fully 
recognizes  the  existence  of  varied  elements  in  the 
composition,  and  explains  its  unity  of  plan  by 
holding  that  an  original  Elohim  document  has 
been  worked  up  by  a  Jehovistic  writer,  through  a 


10  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

series  of  supplements  gathered  from  various 
sources,  into  the  shape  which  it  now  has.  This 
view  was,  in  substance,  advocated  by  De  Wette 
(1807),  EwALi^  (1823),  Gramberg  (1828),  Stah- 
ELiN  (1830),  Bleek  (1830),  TucH  (1838).  The 
last  mentioned  writer  insisted  that  the  whole 
Hexateuch — this  term  now  came  into  use,  be- 
cause the  book  of  Joshua  is  so  closely  connected 
with  the  preceding  books,  and  depends  so  entirely 
upon  them  for  its  historical  position  and  character 
that  it  ought  to  be  considered  with  them,  and 
hence  the  five  books  became  six — that  the  whole 
Hexateuch  (except  Deuteronomy),  including  the 
legislation,  has  at  its  basis  an  historical  composi- 
tion in  which  God  is  named  Elohim.  Of  this 
the  Jehovist  writer  made  the  freest  use,  changing 
it  or  adding  to  it,  according  to  his  purpose.  One 
great  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  theory  was  the 
baldness  of  the  so-called  original  document,  which, 
so  far  from  being  a  continuous  narrative,  must 
rather  have  been  a  series  of  unrelated  and  unin- 
telligible fragments.  A  more  serious  objection 
lay  in  the  fact  that  the  original  Elohistic  docu- 
ment in  a  number  of  cases  referred  to  or  implied 
matters  which  were  contained  in  the  subsequent 
additions.  The  answer  made  in  all  these  cases 
was  that  these  were  Jehovistic  interpolations  in 
the  body  of  the  Elohim  document,  or  else  frag- 
mentary details  which  that  document  originally 
contained.  But  obviously  this  was  a  mere  eva- 
sion, for  no  solid  argument  can  be  drawn  from 
difTerences  if  it  be  allowed  that  there  were  contin- 


Pentateuchal  Criticism.  11 

ual  modifications  made  from  time  to  time.  It 
began  very  soon  to  be  seen  that  the  supplemen- 
tary theory  did  not  rest  upon  a  soHd  basis.  It 
overlooked  or  failed  to  account  for  important 
evidences  of  diversity.  The  conditions  of  the 
problem  were  not  met  by  this  theory  nor  even  by 
the  ingenious  modification  which  Ewald  after- 
wards elaborated,  and  which  the  elder  Delitszch 
was  accustomed  to  call  ''the  crystallizing  hy- 
pothesis." 

7.  The  most  vigorous  and  successful  of  the  as- 
sailants of  the  Supplementary  theory  was  H UP- 
FIELD  (1853),  ^vho  asserted  that  the  document 
which  had  been  assumed  as  the  sole  original  was 
itself  an  obvious  compilation,  and  that  the  sup- 
posed Jehovist  editor  was  really  no  editor  at  all, 
but  represented  an  original  work.  There  were  in 
fact  three  continuous  historical  compositions  at 
the  basis  of  the  Pentateuch,  two  Elohistic  and  one 
Jehovistic.  These  three  quite  independent  ac- 
counts a  later  editor  combined  into  a  continuous 
one,  hesitating  at  no  liberties  with  the  text  he 
had  before  him  to  accomplish  his  design.  This 
view  was  in  substance  accepted  by  Schraader, 
Noldeke  and  Dillman.  That  is,  they  held  to  the 
existence  of  the  three  documents,  although  not 
placing  them  in  the  same  order  nor  agreeing  as  to 
the  period  when  they  were  issued,  and  sometimes 
one  calling  a  certain  portion  Elohistic,  while  others 
call  it  Jehovistic.  All  agreed,  however,  in  assign- 
ing the  Pentateuch  in   its  present  form  to  a  later 


13  rENTATEUClIAL   CRITICISM. 

date,  to  the  time  of  David,  or   even   some  centu- 
ries after  his  day. 

8.  In  1 86 1  there  appeared  two  reactionary- 
works.  One  was  the  concluding  portion  of 
KnOBEL's  Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch,  in  which 
he  defended  the  Supplementary  theory,  holding 
that  the  Jehovist  reviser  of  the  original  document 
used  only  two  other  sources  (das  RechtsbiicJi  tind 
das  KriegsbncJi),  which,  however,  Kuhnen  asserts 
to  have  had  no  existence  save  in  his  own  imagi- 
nation. The  other  was  Keil,  who  took  the  con- 
servative side  and  maintained  the  traditionary 
opinion  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Hexateuch.  But 
his  work  had  little  or  no  effect  in  stemming  the 
tide  of  adventurous  criticism.  In  the  next  year 
appeared  Part  I.  of  the  work  of  Bishop  COLENSO, 
styled  TJie  Pentateuch  and  the  Book  of  Joshua 
Critically  Examined,  in  which  he  endeavored  to 
show  that  just  those  parts  of  the  Hexateuch  that 
contain  the  most  precise  details,  and  therefore 
have  the  air  of  authentic  documents,  are  least  con- 
sistent with  the  laws  of  •  possibility.  This  work, 
which  had  but  little  influence  in  Britain  or 
America,  was  eagerly  translated  and  issued  in 
Dutch  by  Prof.  KuENEN  of  Leyden,  who  con- 
sidered it  of  the  highest  value,  and  appears  to 
have  received  from  it  the  strongest  impulse  in  the 
devious  path  which  at  last  has  led  him  to  the  ab- 
solute denial  of  the  supernatural  and  the  negation 
of  all  real  religion.  In  the  subsequent  parts  of 
his  work,  Colenso  coincided  with  other  critics  of 
his  day  in  upholding   the  Supplementary  theory^ 


Pentateuchal  Criticism.  13 

but  in  so  doing  he  advanced  nothing  new  or  note- 
worthy. 

9.  In  the  same  year  (1862)  appeared  a  small 
treatise  by  a  learned  Jew,  Dr.  Julius  POPPER, 
which  gave  to  the  criticism  of  the  Hexateuch  a 
direction  which  it  retains  to  the  present  day. 
Arguing  from  the  divergencies  by  which  the  Sa- 
maritan and  the  Septuagint  texts  are  distinguished 
from  the  Massoretic,  he  declared  that  the  legisla- 
tion concerning  the  building  of  the  tabernacle 
(Exodus  XXXV :  11)  and  the  consecration  of  the 
priests  (Levit.  viii:  10)  did  not  take  its  present 
shape  until  long  after  the  exile.  Moreover,  the 
original  document,  that  ascribed  to  the  first  Elo- 
histic  writer,  was  not  of  one  piece,  but  the  result 
of  a  lengthened  revision  {diaskeue)  which  received 
its  finishing  touch  from  the  Scribes  who  succeeded 
Ezra.  Some  serious  defects  in  style  hindered 
Popper's  work  from  receiving  the  attention  which 
its  boldness  demanded,  but  before  long  its  chief 
positions  were  set  forth  in  a  way  that  commanded 
a  hearing.  This  was  by  K.  H.  Graf,  who,  in 
1866,  issued  a  monograph  upon  the  Historical 
Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  Kuenen 
justly  styles  epoch-making.  Graf  was  a  pupil  of 
the  veteran  Reuss,  of  Strasburg,  who  claims  that 
for  many  years  he  had  been  orally  teaching  what 
his  scholars  now  brought  out  with  much  parade 
of  argument.  In  an  earlier  publication  (1855) 
Graf  had  maintained  that  the  tabernacle  is  simply 
a  diminutive  copy  of  Solomon's  temple,  all  that  is 
said  about  it  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch 


14  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

being  nothing  but  a  post-exilian  accretion.  But 
in  his  principal  work,  1 1  years  later,  he  assigned 
this  late  origin  to  all  the  laws  of  the  first  Elohist, 
i.  c,  the  great  body  of  legislation  found  in  Exo- 
dus, Leviticus  and  Numbers.  The  historical  por- 
tion of  this  griindscJirift  he  still  maintained 
to  be  the  oldest  part  of  the  Pentateuch.  But 
here,  as  Kuenen  said,  was  the  Achilles'  heel  of 
his  theory.  Hence  RiEHM  and  others  insisted 
that  he  had  no  right  to  separate  the  legislative 
from  the  historical  portions,  unless  he  renounced 
the  leading  principles  of  analysis  as  hitherto  ap- 
plied. Graf  then  yielded,  and  announced  his 
conviction  that  the  whole  of  the  first  Elohist,  his- 
tory as  well  as  laws,  is  post-exilian.  This  view 
was  afterwards  elaborated  with  great  force  by 
Wellhausen,  a  man  of  brilliant  genius  and  the 
master  of  a  fascinating  style,  but  apparently  with- 
out any  reverence  for  divine  things,  who  pushed 
the  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch  to  the  furthest 
possible  point. 

lo.  And  thus  the  matter  stands  at  the  present 
time.  According  to  the  prevailing  view,  different 
documents  were  used  in  the  Hexateuch.  There 
was  a  first  Elohist  and  a  second,  a  first  Jehovist 
and  a  second,  a  Deuteronomist,  and  one  or  more 
final  redactors,  and  the  form  which  the  work  now 
holds  was  not  settled  until  after  the  exile.  Or,  to 
enter  somewhat  more  into  detail  and  state  the 
main  divisions  as  generally  accepted,  there  was  a 
narrative  which,  from  the  attention  it  pays  to  all 
ceremonial  or    sacrificial    usages,  is    termed  the 


Pentateuchal  Criticism.  15 

Priest-code,  and  is  denoted  by  the  letter  P.  An- 
other, from  its  affinity  with  the  great  prophets,  is 
termed  prophetical.  This  is  not  perfectly  homo- 
geneous, and  can  in  some  places  be  separated  into 
its  component  parts;  hence  it  is  denoted  by  the 
two  letters  J  E,  these  being  used  separately  when 
it  is  required  to  designate  either  portion  apart 
from  the  other.  These  particular  letters  are 
chosen  because  the  names  "  Jehovah  "  and  "  Elo- 
him  "  are  used  by  preference  (though  not  exclu- 
sively) in  the  two  component  parts  respectively. 
The  way  in  which  these  different  documents  were 
combined  together  is  supposed  to  have  been 
somewhat  as  follows :  First,  there  were  two  inde- 
pendent narratives  of  the  patriarchal  and  early 
history  of  Israel,  J  and  E,  covering  largely  the 
same  ground  ;  these  were  afterwards  combined  by 
a  redactor  or  compiler  into  the  single  whole  which 
is  denoted  by  J  E.  At  a  later  date  when  P  had 
been  composed,  another  compiler  came  and  united 
P  with  J  E,  thus  giving  rise  to  the  first  four  books 
of  the  Pentateuch  substantially  as  we  have  them. 
The  fifth  book  was  the  work  of  a  writer  who,  in- 
stinct with  prophetic  inspiration,  took  up  laws 
which  for  the  most  part  were  ancient  and  recog- 
nized by  the  Israelites.  These  he  threw  into  a 
new  framework,  emphasized  the  motives  by  which 
their  observance  should  be  dictated,  and  accom- 
modated the  whole  to  the  position  of  the  legisla- 
tor Moses.  It  is  stoutly  denied  that  this  can  be 
set  down  as  a  "  forgery,"  or  that  the  author  de- 
sired to  win  credit  to  himself    by  passing  off  as 


16  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Mosaic  his  own  inventions.  As  Dr.  Driver  says, 
"  his  method  does  not  differ  from  that  of  the 
chronicler,  who,  for  instance,  in  I.  Chronicles 
xxix,  attributes  to  David  a  speech  which  the  idi- 
oms employed  in  it  show  to  be  the  author's  own 
composition.  It  is  an  ideal  Moses  whose  aspira- 
tions and  aims  he  unfolds  before  us;  and  his  con- 
ception is  splendidly  and  worthily  developed." 
There  are  minor  differences  in  the  views  of  differ- 
ent critics,  but  the  foregoing  represents  pretty 
nearly  what  they  hold  in  common. 

II.  According  to  Wellhausen,  there  are  obvi- 
ously three  strata  in  the  Hexateuch  which  can  be 
assigned  to  their  proper  place  in  Hebrew  annals. 
The  turning  point  in  the  history  of  worship  is 
found  in  the  act  of  Josiah  when  he  centralized 
the  cultus'in  Jerusalem.  Up  to  that  time  there 
had  been  many  local  sanctuaries  whose  legiti- 
macy no  one  dreamed  of  disputing.  Hezekiah  had 
attempted  to  abolish  these  local  shrines,  but 
whatever  success  he  met  with  was  forgotten  with- 
in a  hundred  years.  Hence,  we  get  three  histori- 
cal periods,  (i)  that  before  Josiah,  (2)  the  transi- 
tion period  introduced  by  his  reforms,  and  (3)  the 
period  after  the  exile.  Now  it  is  contended  that 
when  the  contents  of  the  Hexateuch  are  carefully 
analyzed  they  show  a  close  conformity  to  these 
three  ascertained  stages  of  Hebrew  development, 
and  reveal  themselves  as  so  many  phases  in  a  liv- 
ing process  by  which  at  last  Hebrew  law  and 
ritual  came  to  assume  the  form  which  they 
now  have,  in  B.  C.  444,  when  the  Priest-code  was 


Pentateuciial  Criticism.  17 

published  and  put  in  force  by  Ezra,  the  Babylonian 
priest  and  scribe. 

The  learned  DiLLMAN,  while  agreeing  as  to  the 
different  documents  which  were  combined  to  form 
the  Pentateuch,  by  no  means  accepts  the  late  date 
assigned  to  the  Priest-code,  but  insists  that  the 
Levitical  system,  which  he  considers  the  oldest,  be- 
longs to  the  ninth  century,  B.  C.  So  far,  there- 
fore, as  concerns  the  relation  of  the  Pentateuch 
to  Hebrew  history,  he  stands  in  decided  opposition 
to  the  Wellhausen  school.  And  he,  in  like  man- 
ner, resists  the  tenet  of  Kuenen  that  the  religious 
history  of  Israel  is  a  purely  natural  development 
and  in  no  wise  the  result  of  a  revelation  from 
God. 

12.  As  has  been  said,  the  Documentary  theory 
proceeds  upon  the  characteristic  differences  in  the 
portions  which  make  up  the  Pentateuch.  These 
differences  relate  to  the  language,  the  style,  the 
religious  conceptions,  and  the  plan  and  method  of 
narration.  There  are  three  codes  which  can  be 
clearly  discriminated  from  one  another,  (i)  One 
is  called  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  and  is  con- 
tained in  Exodus  xx.-xxiv.,  of  which  chapter 
xxxiv.  is  a  compendium.  It  is  expressed  in  a  brief, 
sententious  way,  and  is  in  general  of  a  judicial 
character.  (2)  Another  is  contained  in  Deuter- 
onomy xii.-xxvi.,  and  was  called  by  Eichhorn  a 
people  s  code,  because  of  its  popular  character.  It 
was  directed  to  a  people  already  dwelling  in  the 
land  of  Canaan,  and  in  it  Moses  comes  forward  as 
a  prophet  of  Jehovah   to  exhort   the   people   to 


18  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

obey  the  laws  made  known  to  them.  (3)  The 
third  is  the  Pricst-codc,  consisting  of  the  scattered 
legislation  found  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, in  which  the  whole  Levitical  system  is 
developed.  It  cannot  well  be  denied  that  there 
exists  ground  for  this  classification ;  and  the  dis- 
tinctions drawn  are  not  imaginary,  however  they 
are  to  be  explained.  It  is  different,  however,  with 
the  other  claims  that  are  made,  viz.,  that  these 
codes  contradict  each  other ;  that  a  discrepancy 
exists  between  them  and  the  history  and  litera- 
ture of  the  nation  prior  to  the  exile,  as  appears  by 
the  silence  of  the  different  writers  of  history, 
poetry,  prophecy  and  ethics  as  to  many  of  the 
institutions  mentioned,  and  by  the  fact  that 
their  precepts  were  often  violated  by  holy  men, 
the  leaders  of  the  people,  without  any  rebuke  ex- 
pressed or  implied  ;  that  a  development  in  the 
religion  of  Israel  can  be  traced  from  the  conquest 
to  the  exile  in  three  stages  corresponding  remark- 
ably to  the  variations  between  the  three  codes; 
that  the  books  of  kings  represent  the  history  of 
Israel  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Deuterono- 
mic  code,  while  the  books  of  Chronicles  represent 
it  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Priest-code;  and 
that  the  book  of  Ezekiel  contains  a  detailed  rep- 
resentation of  institutions  that  seem  intermediate 
between  the  Deuteronomic  code  and  the  Priest- 
code. 

13.  The  differences  of  these  codes  from  each 
other  and  from  their  surroundings  may  be  stated 
more    distinctly.      (i)    In   the   Priesthood.     The 


Pentateuchal  Criticism.  19 

Covenant  code  omits  priests;  the  Deuteronomic 
makes  all  the  Levites  priests;  the  Priest-code 
makes  Aaron's  sons  the  only  priests  and  the  Le- 
vites subordinate  ministers.  {2)lnt\iQAUars.  The 
Covenant  code  commands  their  erection  in  all 
places  where  Jehovah  records  his  name;  the  Deu- 
teronomic forbids  to  offer  sacrifices,  save  ''in  the 
place  that  Jehovah  chooseth  in  one  of  thy 
tribes" ;  the  Priest-code  directs  them  to  be  pre- 
sented at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting.  (3) 
In  the  Sacrifices.  These  in  the  Covenant  code 
are  burnt  offerings  and  peace  offerings  only;  the 
Deuteronomic  adds  tithes,  votive  and  free-will 
offerings;  the  Priest-code  adds  the  sin  and  tres- 
pass offerings.  So,  in  regard  to  the  Purifications 
and  the  Feasts^  there  is  an  increase  of  fullness 
and  precision  in  the  utterances  of  the  second  over 
the  first,  and  of  the  third  over  the  second.  A 
similar  discrepancy  exists,  it  is  claimed,  between 
the  Pentateuchal  legislation  and  the  history  and 
literature  of  Israel  prior  to  the  exile.  Thus,  in 
the  period  of  the  Judges  other  altars  besides  the 
one  at  Shiloh  were  erected,  and  laymen,  such  as 
Joshua  and  Gideon,  offered  sacrifices,  both  of 
which  were  contrary  to  the  Deuteronomic  code 
and  the  Priest-code.  Nor  is  mention  made  of  the 
tithes,  or  of  sin  or  trespass  offerings,  or  of  any 
of  the  purifications  or  the  feasts  peculiar  to  the 
Priest-code.  In  the  time  of  Samuel  a  similar  state 
of  things  existed.  Sacrifices  were  offered  at  vari- 
ous places,  instead  of  one  only,  and  by  various 
persons  as  well  as  priests.     And  for  a  long  period 


20  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  remaining  in  the  place 
where  it  was  left  after  it  had  been  returned  by 
the  Philistines,  seems  to  have  been  wholly  ne- 
glected. In  the  time  of  David  it  was  taken  to  Zion, 
and  the  priesthood  was  fully  organized;  but  the 
worship  on  the  high  places  still  continued,  nor 
was  it  done  away  even  when  Solomon  concen- 
trated the  worship  at  Jerusalem.  In  like  manner 
the  literature  of  the  nation  makes  no  reference  to 
the  offerings,  the  purifications  and  the  feasts  of 
the  Priest-code.  The  sin  offering  is  not  men- 
tioned till  the  days  of  Hezekiah,  nor  is  it  found 
anywhere  in  the  Psalter,  save  in  the  fortieth 
Psalm.  Nowhere  in  the  pre-exilic  history  or 
writings  is  there  evidence  that  the  elaborate  Sab- 
batical system  was  observed,  or  that  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  the  culmination  of  the  whole  ritual, 
was  kept  according  to  the  ordinance.  Song  and 
prophecy  alike  omit  to  refer  to  it.  So,  as  has 
been  said,  the  historical  atmosphere  of  the  books 
of  Kings  differs  decidedly  from  that  of  the  books 
of  Chronicles,  the  former  making  frequent  mention 
of  matters  belonging  to  one  code,  and  the  latter 
restricting  its  statements  to  things  belonging  to 
the  other.  It  is  contended,  therefore,  that  as 
the  codes  are  not  recognized  in  their  integrity 
in  the  literature  and  history  of  Israel,  they  did 
not  exist  at  the  early  period  claimed  for  them, 
but  were  simply  the  result  of  a  very  late  de- 
velopment. Wellhausen  puts  this  in  an  extreme 
form.  According  to  him,  when  the  temple 
was  destroyed  and   the   services  interrupted,  the 


Pentateuchal  Criticism.  31 

old  practices  were  written  down  that  they  might 
not  be  lost.  Thus  in  the  exile  the  ritual  became 
matter  of  teaching  or  Torah ;  the  first  who  took 
this  step  was  the  prophet  and  priest  Ezekiel.  "In 
the  last  part  of  his  book  he  began  the  literary 
record  of  the  customary  ritual  of  the  temple; 
other  priests  followed  in  his  footsteps ;  and  so 
there  arose  during  the  captivity  a  school  of  men 
who  wrote  down  and  systematized  what  they  had 
formerly  practiced.  When  the  temple  was  re- 
stored, this  theoretic  zeal  still  went  on  and  pro- 
duced further  developments  in  action  and  reac- 
tion with  the  actual  practice  of  the  new  temple; 
the  final  result  of  the  long-continued  process  was 
the  Priest-code,  which  contains  all  the  legal  fea- 
tures of  Mosaism." 

14.  Such  now  is  the  view  entertained  by  the 
majority  of  the  leading  critics  of  Europe  as  to  the 
constitution  of  the  Pentateuch.  On  subordinate 
questions  they  differ  with  warmth,  but  on  the 
main  points  are  in  substantial  agreement.  They 
are  at  one  as  to  the  age  of  Deuteronomy,  which, 
they  say,  was  not  written  by  Moses,  nor  at  any  time 
near  his  age,  but  long  afterward.  So  in  regard  to 
the  relative  age  of  the  Elohistic  document  and 
the  Jehovistic,  they  differ  by  a  century  or  a  half 
century ;  but  all  alike  put  their  origin  at  a  period 
not  earlier  than  800  B.  C.  The  same  harmony 
obtains  as  to  the  Priest-code  or  Levitical  law. 
That  it  was  drawn  up  by  Moses  ihey  unanimously 
deny.  Some  portions  of  it  are,  or  possibly  may 
be,  as  old  as  his  time  ;  no  one  disputes  this.     But 


33  Pextateuchal  Criticism. 

the  code,  as  a  whole,  was  at  least  six  centuries 
later,  and  the  only  question  is  whether  it  belongs 
to  800  B.C.,  as  Dillman  holds,  or  whether,  as  just 
stated,  it  was  prepared  after  the  captivity,  and  first 
announced  to  the  people  by  Ezra,  as  Wellhausen 
and  Kuenen  affirm.  Some  eminent  British 
scholars,  such  as  the  brilliant  W.  ROBERTSON 
Smith,  and  the  learned  Drs.  T.  K.  Cheyne  and 
S.  R.  Driver,  professors  in  Oxford  University, 
have  given  assent  to  these  positions.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  accomplished  Prof.  C.  H.  TOY 
of  Harvard  College,  with  whom  it  is  said  that 
some  of  the  younger  scholars  of  our  own  country 
are  in  sympathy.  Nor  is  it  to  be  denied  that  some 
of  the  advocates  of  these  views  consider  them  en- 
tirely consistent  with  the  inspiration  and  canonical 
authority  of  the  books  of  the  Hexateuch,  for, 
they  say,  no  matter  when  or  by  whom  these 
were  set  forth,  they  in  every  case  retain  the 
sanction  given  them  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  are  an  authentic  and  sufficient  guide  for 
the  belief  of  any  into  whose  hands  they  may 
come.  This  may  be  true  so  far  as  concerns 
those  who  now  maintain  it,  but  certainly  it  will 
not  hold  generally.  If  it  be  openly  proclaimed 
that  we  have  no  original  data  of  early  date,  and 
that  what  profess  or  at  least  appear  to  be  such  are 
only  the  residuum  of  varying  traditions  which 
have  been  recast  and  edited  at  various  times  and 
by  various  hands  until  in  the  course  of  centuries 
they  have  reached  their  present  form,  men  will 
certainly  arrogate  to  themselves  the  right  to  sit  in 


Pentateuchal  Criticism.  23 

judgment  upon  this  residuum,  analyze  its  contents 
and  form  their  own  conclusion  as  to  its  claims 
upon  them.  And  if  their  confidence  is  shaken  in 
the  historic  worth  of  the  first  portion  of  the  Old 
Testament,  it  cannot  remain  very  strong  as  to  the 
rest.  And,  still  further,  if  they  feel  that  the  New 
Testament  pre-supposes  and  vouches  for  the  early 
portions  of  the  Old,  as  a  true  and  trustworthy 
narrative,  the  conviction  of  a  serious  error  here 
cannot  but  work  disastrously  upon  the  reverence 
they  entertain  for  the  entire  volume  of  Scripture. 
15.  It  is  right,  therefore,  to  examine  whether 
these  claims  are  well-founded.  A  high  authority 
assures  us  that  ''Great  men  are  not  always  wise," 
and  it  may  be  that  the  theory  which  has  obtained 
such  wide  acceptance  among  the  learned  does  not 
really  rest  upon  a  solid  foundation.  Similar  as- 
saults upon  the  New  Testament  have  been  made 
from  time  to  time,  and  occasionally  have  seemed 
to  carry  all  before  them.  Yet  the  result  has  vin- 
dicated the  steadfast  faith  of  the  old  father  who 
once,  at  a  time  when  the  heavens  were  overhung 
with  black,  exclaimed,  Nubecula  est,  transibit. 
The  written  word  still  stands,  and  will  continue  to 
stand  as  the  days  of  heaven.  In  this  confidence 
a  series  of  essays  has  been  planned,  written  by 
men  belonging  to  different  branches  of  the  Evan- 
gelical church,  designed  to  set  forth  in  a  simple 
but  lucid  way  the  reasons  for  a  conservative  view 
of  Pentateuchal  criticism.  There  is  no  intention 
to  question  the  learning,  theacuteness,  or  the  good 
faith  of  the  advocates  of  the  modern  view,  or  to 


24  Pentatel'chal  Criticism. 

deny  that  their  investigations  have  borne  good 
fruit  in  many  \va}-s.  Their  patient  analysis  and 
minute  comparison  of  the  different  parts  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  have  brought  into  prominence 
many  circumstances  which  had  been  overlooked, 
and  for  this  they  are  entitled  to  great  credit.  But 
sometimes  they  have  been  biassed  by  philosophi- 
cal theories,  at  others  they  have  been  in  haste  to 
construct  a  hypothesis,  and  so  have  reached  con- 
clusions which  it  is  impossible  to  accept.  It  may 
very  well  be  that  there  are  in  the  Hexateuch,  as  in 
other  parts  of  the  sacred  volume,  things  which  it 
is  not  easy  to  explain  upon  any  view  of  the  case. 
We  are  far  from  af^rming  that  we  have  exhaust- 
ed all  knowledge  or  solved  all  mysteries.  One 
can  well  afford  to  allow  some  matters  to  rest  in 
the  obscurity  wherein  they  have  always  lain. 
Meanwhile  it  is  a  duty  to  resist  firmly  all  solutions 
of  critical  and  historical  problems  which  cut  knots 
instead  of  untying  them,  which  take  away  some 
difficulties  only  to  replace  them  by  others  that 
are  greater,  and  which  gain  their  end  by  means 
that  unsettle  the  foundations  of  all  faith.  This  is 
attempted  in  the  essays  that  follow  the  present 
one,  each  writer  taking  up  one  of  the  various 
phases  of  the  subject  and  treating  it  from  his  own 
point  of  view. 

1 6.  Meanwhile  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  conclude 
this  introductory  paper  with  a  brief  compendious 
statement  of  the  considerations  which  oppose  a 
late  date  for  the  Pentateuch  and  the  arguments 
in  support  of  such  a  date,     (i)  The  total  lack  of 


Pentateuchal  Criticism.  35 

external  evidence  in  its  favor.  All  that  we  know 
from  sacred  or  secular  sources  is  on  the  side  of 
the  traditionary  view.  (2)  The  acknowledged  in- 
consistencies that  remain.  If  the  matter  of  the 
Hexateuch  has  been  so  often  revised  as  the  pre- 
vailing theory  declares,  how  comes  it  to  pass  that 
so  many  seeming  contradictions  continue  to  be 
found,  so  many  divergencies  in  tone,  in  spirit,  in 
conception  ?  On  the  ordinary  view  these  are  to 
be  expected,  but  by  no  means  on  the  other.  (3) 
It  is  vain  to  say  that  Moses  was  not  cultivated 
enough  to  write  the  books  attributed  to  him,  for 
he  was  trained  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians, 
who,  in  his  day,  had,  as  we  know,  an  abundant 
and  varied  literature.  (4)  There  is  no  reason  to 
dispute  the  existence  of  a  priesthood  in  his  day, 
since  it  is  clear  that  there  was  a  large  priestly 
caste  in  Egypt,  and  it  is  in  the  last  degree  im- 
probable that  a  Hebrew  priesthood  should  wait  a 
thousand  years,  or  even  the  half  of  that  period, 
for  a  ritual.  (5)  The  theory  that  denies  every- 
thing but  a  few  fragments  to  the  Mosaic  period, 
and  relegates  all  psalms  and  proverbs  to  a  post- 
exilian  date,  leaves  a  long  period  of  history  with- 
out any  literature,  and  offers  no  basis  for  the 
splendid  outburst  of  prophecy  which  illumined 
the  eighth  century  before  Christ.  (6)  The  princi- 
ple that  the  non-observance  of  a  law  proves  its 
non-existence  is  wholly  fallacious.  (7)  The  lan- 
guage of  the  Hexateuch  is  inconsistent  with  a  late 
origiii.  Its  parts  differ  among  themselves,  but  in 
nothing  like  the  degree  in  which  they  differ  from 


36  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

the  Hebrew  of  the  Persian  era.  (8)  The  local 
allusions  throughout  ure  to  Egypt;  how  could 
this  possibly  be  if  these  writings  received  their 
last  reduction  from  persons  all  whose  surround- 
ings were  Palestinian  or  Babylonian  ?  (9)  There 
are  continual  references  to  a  life  in  the  wilderness, 
a  journeying  through  the  desert;  what  could  sug- 
gest these  to  men  whose  whole  lives  were  passed 
in  fertile  and  cultivated  regions?  (10)  The  doc- 
trinal contents  of  the  Hexateuch,  being  simple 
and  elementary,  are  in  harmony  with  the  tradi- 
tionaiy  date  and  not  the  imaginary  one.  (i  i)  The 
modern  theory  abounds  in  license.  Because  King 
Josiah  found  ''the  book  of  the  law"  in  the  temple, 
it  is  insisted,  without  the  shadow  of  reason,  that 
this  book  was  Deuteronomy,  which  had  just  been 
written,  and  had  been  secreted  in  order  that  it 
might  be  found!  Ezekiel's  splendid  idealization 
of  the  church  of  the  future  is,  in  defiance  of  all 
taste  and  judgment,  converted  from  a  magnificent 
symbolic  prophecy  into  the  prosaic  outline  of  a 
new  ritual  then  for  the  first  time  introduced !  (12) 
The  Jewish  Rabbis  enumerate  five  things  want- 
ing in  the  second  temple  which  were  found  in  the 
first  (the  Shekinah,  the  ark  and  mercy  seat,  the 
spirit  of  prophec}',  the  Urim  and  Thummim  and 
the  fire  on  the  altar);  but  if  these  were  inventions 
of  Ezra  and  his  associates,  what  possible  motive 
did  they  have  for  constructing  a  style  of  worship 
which  would  only  make  more  evident  the  bald- 
ness of  their  own  services?  (13)  In  some  cases 
the  theory  rests  upon  the  philosophical  postulate 


Pentateuchal  Criticism.  27 

that  religion  in  any  case  is  only  a  natural  develop- 
ment, the  supernatural  being  impossible  and  in- 
credible ;  this  is  certainly  the  view  of  Kuenen  and 
Wellhausen,  yet  no  man  who  holds  it  can  possibly 
be  a  fair  interpreter  of  Scripture.  (14)  These 
latter  writers  not  only  exclude  the  divine  factors 
from  the  history  of  Israel,  but  assert  the  existence 
of  fictions  in  that  history,  not  merely  in  single, 
separate  instances,  hut passiiUy  Avherever  a  patch 
was  needed  to  give  the  story  an  air  of  authority. 
(15)  The  analysis  of  the  documents  is  based  often 
upon  very  subtle  criteria,  is  frequently  mechanical, 
and  again  makes  assumptions  that  are  purely 
conjectural ;  hence  there  is  serious  difiiculty  in 
accepting  its  conclusions  when  they  are  at  war 
with  the  statements  of  the  history  itself.  (16) 
The  existence  of  different  documents  is  no  argu- 
ment against  the  Mosaic  authorship,  for  the  man 
of  God  may  have  compiled  his  first  book  from 
antecedent  data,  and  in  those  that  followed  may 
have  reduced  into  form  what  had  previously  been 
put  in  writing  by  others  under  his  direction.  Con- 
jecture is  just  as  allowable  in  favor  of  Moses  as  it 
is  against  him.  (17)  So  in  regard  to  the  book  of 
Joshua,  the  natural  complement  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, there  is  nothing  strained  or  unnatural  in 
the  opinion  that  some  of  the  men  trained  under 
the  guidance  of  the  great  law  giver  made  this 
record.  (18)  The  testimony  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  clear  and  strong  as  to  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship. Our  Lord  said  (John  v:  46)  of  Moses,  'Tie 
wrote  of  me,"  and  in  the  next  verse  speaks  of  "his 


Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

No  principle  of  accommodation  will 
explain  this  language.  In  Mark  xii:  26  he  asked, 
"Have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses?"  So 
the  Apostle  Peter  said  (Acts  iii :  22),  ''Moses  in^ 
deed  said:  A  prophet  shall  the  Lord  God  raise  up 
unto  you."  And  the  Apostle  Paul  cites  the  Pen- 
tateuch in  the  terms,  ''It  is  written  in  the  law  of 
Moses,"  and  again  "Moses  saith,"  and  again 
"Moses  describeth  the  righteousness  that  is  of  the 
Law"  (I  Cor.  ix:  9;  Rom.  x:  19;  x:  5).  It  does 
not  seem  possible  to  understand  these  references  as 
meaning  anything  else  than  the  accepted  view  of 
that  age  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  books 
that  bear  his  name. 

17.  It  only  remains  to  be  said  that  the  view 
which  is  maintained  in  these  essays  does  not  deny 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  edited  after  it  left  the 
hands  of  Moses  by  the  insertion  of  slight  notes, 
such  as  the  statement  (Gen.  xxxvi.31) :  "These 
are  the  kings  that  reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom 
before  there  reigned  any  king  over  the  children 
of  Israel."  Nor  does  it  deny  that  different  docu. 
ments  were  used  by  Moses  in  composing  the  nar^ 
rative  found  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  nor  that  he 
modified  by  divine  direction  the  laws  which  he 
set  forth,  whenever  a  change  of  circumstances 
required  such  modification,  nor  that  he  brought 
about  a  fuller  development  of  the  system  as  a 
whole  in  the  later  books  of  the  law.  It  is  freely 
admitted  that  there  is  a  real  basis  for  many  of  the 
distinctions  drawn  between  the  Book  of  the  Cov- 
enant, the  Priest-code,  and  the  Deuteronomic  ut- 


Pentateuchal  Criticism.  30 

terances.  But  it  is  maintained  that  none  of  these 
when  fairly  considered  are  inconsistent  with  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  work  as  a  whole.  There 
are  indeed  difficulties,  as  one  would  naturally  ex- 
pect, in  a  work  of  such  antiquity,  so  small  in 
compass,  yet  covering  so  wide  a  field  ;  but  these 
are  much  fewer  and  slicrhter  than  those  which  at- 
tend  the  theory  that  puts  the  composition  of  the 
Pentateuch  from  six  hundred  to  a  thousand  years 
later  than  the  date  of  the  events  and  laws  which 
it  records. 


30 


AEGUMENT  OF   THE  TRACT. 

The  possibility  of  a  Revelation  is  assumed,  and  tlie 
question  is  one  of  evidence.  We  do  not  look  for  de- 
monstrative but  for  probable  evidence.  The  great 
feature  of  the  Religion  of  Israel  is  its  teaching  of  God. 
No  other  ancient  religion  furnished  so  high  a  concep- 
tion. For  this  there  must  be  a  cause,  and  human 
evolution  is  insufficient.  Monotheism  lies  at  the  basis 
of  this  religion,  and  is  its  most  ancient  teaching.  No 
date  assignable  to  the  sacred  books  can  do  away  with 
this  fact.  The  Religion  of  Israel  was  also  unique  in 
its  teaching  of  the  holiness  of  God.  Objections  to 
this  statement  considered.  It  is  also  peculiar  in  its 
view  of  the  nature  of  sin,  and  of  man's  duty  towards 
God.  Its  sacrifices  are  widely  different  from  heathen 
sacrifices:  (1)  in  having  regard  to  the  character  of  the 
offerer,  and  (2)  in  rejecting  the  notion  of  sacrifice  as 
itself  a  compensation  for  sin.  It  based  man's  accept- 
ance with  God  upon  faith;  objections  to  this.  Why 
was  the  ceremonial  law  given  ?  Two  answers  :  (1)  that 
of  certain  critics, which  is  shown  to  be  insufficient  and 
self-destructive;  (2)  that  of  St.  Paul,  w^hich  is  rea- 
sonable and  in  accordance  with  the  facts.  The  im- 
probability that  the  priests  should  have  devised  the  law. 
Sundry  characteristics  of  the  law.  The  Religion  of 
Israel  preparatory  for  Christianity;  and  Christianity 
tiie  completion  and  fulfillment  of  the  Religion  of  IsraeL 
The  view  of  the  Apostles,  and  of  our  Lord. 


WAS    THE     RELIGION    OF    ISRAEL    A 

REVELATION     OR     A     MERELY 

HUMAN    DEVELOPMENT? 


BY  PROF.  GARDINKR. 


In  considering  this  question,  if  we  assume  that 
the  Creator  cannot  communicate  with  His  crea- 
tures in  any  especial  or  unusual  way,  it  is  an- 
swered in  advance ;  there  could  have  been  no 
revelation,  and  the  religion  of  Israel,  like  all 
others,  must  have  been  of  merely  human  develop- 
ment. But  if  we  admit  that  an  Almighty  and 
loving  Father  may  seek  to  guide  His  children 
directly,  when  their  own  weakness  and  ignorance 
would  miss  the  way,  then  the  matter  becomes 
simply  a  question  of  evidence.  * 

It  is  not  necessary  to  consider  here  the  sup- 
position of  a  primeval  revelation  enjoyed  alike  by 
all  the  ancestors  of  the  human  race,  some  rays  of 
which  continued  long  to  shine  through  the  fogs 
of  human  tradition,  brightened,  perhaps,  by  fur- 
ther Divine  inspiration.  Our  question  has  solely 
to  do  with  the  various  religions  as  they  appear  on 
the  stage  of    history. 

In  looking  at  the  question  without  prepossession 
on  either  side,  we  cannot  ask  for  demonstrative 
proof,  for  this  is  impossible,  one  way  or  the  other, 
from    the   nature  of   the  subject.     Our  inquiry  is 

*  We  need  not  here  consider  the  assumption  that,  wheth- 
er there  were  a  revelation  or  not,  there  can  be  no  evi- 
dence of  it  appealing  to  the  senses  and  the  reason.  See 
Max  Miiller,  "  Hibbart  Lectures  on  the  Ori; 
Loct.  IV.,  p.  174. 


32  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

simply  as  to  the  balance  of  probability — whether, 
in  view  of  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  it  is  more  like- 
ly that  the  religion  of  Israel  was  developed  by  a 
merely  human  process,  or  that  man  was  guided, 
at  least  in  its  main  points,  by  Revelation  from  on 
high.  While  this  principal  question  is,  in  a  sense, 
independent  of  considerations  of  time,  yet  the 
period  at  which  a  certain  religious  knowledge  was 
in  the  possession  of  Israel  is,  nevertheless,  one  of 
the  facts  in  the  case ;  and  while,  on  the  one  hand, 
if  this  were  of  purely  human  attainment,  great 
stretches  of  time  must  be  allowed  for  its  acquisi- 
tion, on  the  other,  if  it  were  Divinely  communi- 
cated, there  is  no  presumption,  outside  of  the  fit- 
ness of  things,  against  its  having  been  given  at 
any  time  when  it  seemed  good  to  the  Giver. 

What  were  the  great  and  salient  features  of  the 
religion  of  Israel  as  compared  with  other  religions 
of  the  ancient  world  ?  There  can  be  but  one  an- 
swer in  regard  to  its  most  prominent  and  charac- 
teristic point — its  teaching  of  God.  It  taught  in 
every  variety  of  way,  and  Avith  every  possible 
emphasis,  that  there  is  one  God  only,  from  Whom 
all  things  proceed.  Who  is  absolutely  alone 
in  His  unutterable  majesty,  above  and  separate 
from  His  creation,  yet  ruling  it  according  to  His 
own  holy  will,  and  requiring  from  His  creatures 
worship,  obedience,  love,  and  the  imitation  of  His 
own  holiness  and  purity.  Whatever  other  features 
may  present  themselves  in  the  Pentateuch,  the 
Psalms,  or  the  Prophets,  at  whatever  time  those 
may  have  been  severally  published,  and  whatever 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  33 

may  have  been  the  conduct  of  the  people,  ob- 
viously, to  every  reader  in  every  age,  this  is  the 
one  foundation  of  the  religion  of  Israel  as  seen  in 
its  sacred  books. 

In  the  other  religions  of  antiquity,  whatever 
may  have  been  the  truth  originally  possessed  by 
them,  we  recognize  no  such  all-pervading  teach< 
ing.  In  several,  perhaps  in  most  of  them,  there 
are  more  or  less  clear  indications  of  an  original 
monothestic  belief.  But  in  all,  this  had  been  gross- 
ly corrupted  before  they  appear  in  the  records  of 
history.  In  Egypt  a  certain  monotheism  may 
have  been  preserved  as  an  esoteric  doctrine  of  the 
priests,  although  the  evidence  is  insufficient  to 
show  whether  this  was  true  monotheism  or  only 
pantheism ;  but  from  the  earliest  historic  times 
gross  polytheism  and  idolatry  was  not  only  the  re- 
ligion of  the  people,  but  emphatically  sanctioned 
in  their  sacred  literature.  In  China,  the  existence 
and  unity  of  God  seem  to  have  been  preserved 
as  a  sort  of  a  far-off  reminiscence,  but  the  whole 
tendency  Avas  to  leave  the  Almighty  Father  out 
of  sight,  and  practically  to  make  human  ancestors 
the  sole  object  of  worship.  In  India,  a  refined  in- 
tellectual pantheism,  among  the  educated  classes, 
had  superseded  polytheism,  and  polytheism  itself 
had  been  explained  by  what  is  described  in  mod- 
ern terms  as  HcnotJicisin ;  but  the  whole  duty 
of  man  was  made  to  center  in  himself,  and  his 
highest  aspiration  must  be  the  Nirwana.  In  Baby- 
lonia, and  thence  in  Assyria,  we  have  but  to  com- 
pare the  legends  of  the  Creation,  the  Flood,  etc.. 


34  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

as  given  in  Smith's  "  Chaldean  Genesis,"  and  in 
the  "  Records  of  the  Past,"  with  the  simple  story 
of  the  Pentateuch  to  see  the  utter  contrast  be- 
tween them.  The  one  is  saturated  with  the 
grossest  polytheism ;  the  other  is  purely  and 
severely  monotheistic.  The  comparison  need  not 
be  carried  further  ;  for  it  is  recognized  that  the 
religion  of  the  Old  Testament  stands,  in  this 
respect,  upon  a  different  and  far  higher  level 
than  that  of  any  other  ancient  nation.  Nowhere 
else  is  there  the  same  recognition  at  once  of  the 
unity  of  the  Supreme  Being,  of  His  separation 
from  and  yet  constant  government  over  His  cre- 
ation, and  of  the  consequent  relations  of  duty  and 
love  on  the  part  of  man  towards  Him.  Single 
philosophers  in  various  nations  and  at  various 
times,  as  Confucius  or  Buddha,  Zoroaster  or  Plato, 
in  some  of  these  points  rose  to  higher  and  better 
conceptions  than  their  contemporaries ;  but  con- 
fessedly, the  religion  proclaimed  with  authority  to 
the  whole  people  of  Israel  was  immeasurably  su- 
perior to  that  made  known  to  any  other  ancient 
nation. 

For  this  fact  there  must  be  a  cause.  A  theory 
proposed  for  acceptance  is  this  :  Some  germs  of 
this  higher  religion  were  handed  down  from  very 
ancient  times,  here  and  there  accepted  and  im- 
proved by  the  wiser  and  more  spiritual  among  the 
people,  gradually  worked  over  by  the  enlightened 
prophets  of  Israel  in  the  face  of  much  opposition, 
and  finally  adopted  by  the  people  in  the  erroneous 
belief  that  such  had  been  the  faith  of  their  fathers. 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  35 

We  need  not  stop  to  ask  how  it  happened  that, 
among  this  particular  people,  so  obstinately  given, 
like  their  cotemporaries,  to  polytheism  and  idol- 
atry, such  a  long  succession  of  enlightened  pro- 
phets, teaching  as  with  one  voice,  should 
have  arisen.  The  theory  itself  does  not  meet 
the  facts.  The  tradition  that  the  religion  of 
Amos  and  Isaiah  was,  in  all  its  essential  features, 
the  religion  also  of  Abraham  and  Moses  was 
deeply  imbedded  in  all  the  literature  of  Israel, 
and,  what  is,  perhaps,  still  more  important,  in  all 
their  "  folk-lore."  Assign  what  dates  we  please  to 
the  narratives  of  Genesis  and  Exodus,  make  even 
the  reality-breathing  stories  of  Abraham  and 
Joseph  and  Moses  mere  legends  and  myths,  if  one 
can,  there  yet  remains  in  these  very  legends  and 
in  every  record  by  which  we  may  look  into  the 
deepest  convictions  of  the  people,  the  conscious- 
ness that  they  were  a  nation  chosen  out  of  the 
whole  earth  by  the  Lord  to  receive  certain  revela- 
tions and  promises  from  Him,  bound  to  Him  by 
peculiar  ties,  intended  to  fulfill  certain  purposes  of 
His,  and  under  the  obligation  of  certain  duties 
towards  Him.  How  is  this  to  be  accounted  for? 
There  is  a  little,  though  only  a  very  little,  that  can 
be  compared  with  this  among  other  nations  ;  but 
even  that,  such  as  it  is,  must  be  traced  back  to  its 
roots  in  most  ancient  times.  So  it  must  be  with 
Israel ;  but  as  their  history  is  followed  back  we 
come  more  and  more  upon  times  and  upon  habits 
of  thought  and  life  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
invention  of  such  a  religion. 


86  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Again,  another  difficulty  with  this  theory  is, 
that  the  essential  basis  of  the  religion  of  Israel  is 
not  one  which  admits  of  the  sort  of  growth  sup- 
posed. We  might  imagine  a  worship  of  the  sepa- 
rate powers  of  nature  gradually  superseded  by  a 
recognition  of  the  unity  of  nature,  and  so  of  one 
universal,  underlying  force,  although  historically 
such  a  process  has  tended  rather  to  pantheism 
than  to  monotheism.  But  in  Israel  the  first  notes 
that  are  heard  at  all  are  of  solitary  supremacy. 
The  fundamental  utterance  alike  of  command,  of 
history,  of  popular  song,  through  all  the  previous 
ages,  is  summed  up  in  the  words  of  Isaiah  (xlii:8), 
*'  I  am  the  Lord  .  .  .  my  glory  will  I  not  give  to 
another."  The  ten  commandments  form  the  very 
gist  and  kernel  of  the  Hebrew  religion,  and  are 
acknowledged  by  all  critics  to  be  a  part  of  its 
most  ancient  statutes.  They  belonged  to  Israel 
when  just  emerging  from  a  servile  condition  and 
when  bent  upon  having  a  golden  calf  for  their 
god ;  yet  they  open  with  the  absolute  and  un- 
compromising command:  *' I  am  the  Lord  thy 
God:  thou  shalt  have  none  other  gods  but  me." 
Around  these  commandments,  as  a  nucleus  and 
center,  the  whole  religion  of  Israel  is  grouped, 
and  they  announce  an  absolute  and  exclusive 
monotheism,  with  a  summary  of  the  duty  of  man 
towards  God  and  towards  his  fellows  flowing  from 
this  fundamental  truth.  However  debased  the 
people  may  have  been,  however  far  they  may 
have  strayed  away  into  polytheism  and  idolatry, 
there  is  no  trace  of  any  period  when  the  authori- 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  37 

tative  utterance  of  their  religion  was  otherwise 
than  this. 

Is  it  more  probable  that  such  a  religion,  so 
strongly  opposed  to  the  natural  bent  of  the  Isra- 
elites, and  requiring  of  them  duties  to  which  they 
were  so  averse,  should  have  been  developed  by  a 
merely  natural  process,  and  ultimately  have  been 
universally  accepted,  or  that  it  should  have  been 
communicated  to  them  from  without?  If  there 
were  any  historic  possibility  that — after  the  time 
of  Abraham — it  could  have  been  communicated 
to  them  by  any  other  more  enlightened  nation,  I 
suppose  no  one  would  hesitate  to  say  that  such 
communication  was  far  more  probable  than  that 
they  should  have  evolved  it  for  themselves ;  but 
there  was  no  such  nation.  Other  nations  were 
more  powerful,  more  numerous,  more  wealthy, 
more  advanced  in  the  arts ;  but  in  religion  they 
stood  on  a  lower  plane.  The  only  escape  from 
the  enormous  difficulties  of  supposing  such  an 
evolution  among  the  ancient  Israelites  is  in  the 
recognition  of  a  revelation,  and  such  revelation  is 
entirely  in  accordance  with  the  character  of  a  lov- 
ing and  almighty  Father. 

It  may  not  be  objected  that  while  a  revelation 
is  theoretically  possible,  it  is  yet  so  far  removed 
from  the  ordinary  dealings  of  Providence,  as  seen 
in  the  works  of  nature,  that  almost  any  degree  of 
improbability  is  more  likely,  for  this  would  be 
begging  the  question.  What  would  be  "the  ordi- 
nary dealings  of  Providence "  with  a  world  of 
responsible  beings,  created  by  Himself,  yet  with- 


38  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

out  knowledge  of  Him  or  of  their  duty?  The 
usual  course  of  the  physical  phenomena  not  only 
gives  no  answer,  but  does  not  come  at  all  in  con- 
tact with  this  question.  It  must  be  met  and  an- 
swered on  moral  grounds. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  Hebrew  mono- 
theism was  not  merely  a  statute  or  a  reiteration 
of  many  statutes;  it  is  the  very  groundwork  of 
the  whole  national  life,  the  proposed  reason  of 
the  nation's  existence,  incorporated  into  its  whole 
history,  at  once  the  refrain  of  every  professed 
Divine  communication  and  the  substratum  of  its 
whole  symbolic  worship.  It  is  not  a  splendid 
philosophic  conclusion  sewed  on  to  a  practical 
worship  of  a  different  kind,  and  it  is  not  a  sur- 
mise of  a  dimly  seen,  underlying  truth  ;  but  it  is 
of  the  very  fibre  out  of  which  were  woven  all 
laws,  and  ordinances  of  worship,  and  duties,  and 
providential  dealings  with  their  national  life. 

So  it  is  presented  to  us  in  their  sacred  books. 
It  has  been  suggested  that  these  books  may  have 
been  written  later,  and  merely  reflect  back  into  a 
remoter  age  the  ideas  of  the  time  of  their  compila- 
tion. It  is  not  necessary  here  to  show  that  such 
a  theory  is  contrary  to  the  principles  of  literary 
criticism,  and  would  require  a  skill  in  imitating 
the  local  coloring  of  the  times  and  places  where 
they  profess  to  have  been  written  far  beyond  the 
literary  development  of  the  Jewish,  or  of  any  other 
people.  This  is  strong  evidence,  and  the  exceed- 
ingly few  apparent  marks  of  a  later  date,  when 
not  otherwise    sufficiently  explained,   are    easily 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  39 

accounted  for  as  originally  glosses  on  these  ancient 
documents.  But  there  need  be  no  concern  here 
to  defend  the  antic^uity  of  these  books.  Let 
them  have  been  written  when  you  will,  they  not 
merely  express  the  monotheistic  ideas  of  their 
writers,  but  they  make  monotheism  the  whole 
pivot  of  the  history,  the  legislation,  the  poetry  of 
the  people.  It  is  a  literary  and  philosophic  im- 
possibility that  all  this  could  have  been  purely 
imaginary.  There  must  have  been  a  basis,  at 
least,  of  reality.  And  if  so,  the  arguments  above 
advanced  point  to  a  revelation  as  the  most  prob- 
able explanation  of  the  phenomena. 

The  religion  of  Israel  did  not  stop  with  the 
bare  assertion  of  the  unity  of  God.  It  insisted 
equally  upon  His  absolute  holiness  and  His  be- 
nevolence. Here  it  was  still  more  widely  sepa- 
rated from  other  religions  of  antiquity.  What- 
ever religion  has  been  of  human  devising  has 
necessarily  portrayed  its  deity  according  to  hu- 
man conceptions  ;  and  as  far  as  any  has  been  cor- 
rupted by  human  devices,  so  far  also  has  its  repre- 
sentation of  the  divine  Being  been  degraded. 
Even  among  the  Israelites  themselves  this  was 
largely  the  case  in  the  popular  apprehension  of 
God.  Still  further:  whatever  revelation  is  given 
to  man,  in  order  to  have  any  value,  must  necessa- 
rily be  conveyed  in  terms  adapted  to  the  com- 
prehension of  the  times  when  it  is  given.  Hence 
the  older  revelations  were,  and  must  have  been 
made  in  those  anthropomorphic  terms  and  forms 
which  are   now   so   often   thoughtlessly   objected 


40  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

against  them.  If  even  now  we  can  only  speak  of 
spiritual  things  in  terms  borrowed  from  the  ob- 
jects of  sense,  how  much  more  must  this  have 
been  the  case  in  the  infancy  of  our  race  ?  Never- 
theless, under  and  through  all  this  anthropomor- 
phic vesture,  there  shines  out  an  ideal  of  absolute 
holiness  and  benevolence — the  former  character- 
istic more  clearly,  the  latter  as  far  as  it  could  be 
comprehended.  Such  ideas,  in  the  degree  and 
extent  in  which  they  appear  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, in  all  human  experience  were  never  else- 
where attained.  Is  it  probable  that  the  Israelites, 
of  all  people  in  the  world,  developed  this  concep- 
tion unaided  ? 

It  is  alleged  that  even  among  them  this  concep- 
tion was  very  imperfect,  that  the  sacred  books 
attribute  to  God  human  passions  and  imperfec- 
tions unworthy  of  this  ideal,  and  put  into  His 
mouth  commands  of  savage  cruelty  and  revenge.^'^ 
The  simple  answer  to  this  allegation  is,  that  it  is 
not  true.  God  did  indeed  allow  slavery,  while 
greatly  mitigating  its  hardships.  He  suffered 
divorce  and  polygamy,  while  imposing  many  re- 
straints upon   its  license.     He  tolerated  revenge, 

*  It  should  be  noticed  that  if  these  things  were  true,  on 
the  theory  of  the  critics,  all  this  was  done  by  tiiose  later 
and  more  enlightened  prophets  who  compiled  or  worked 
over  the  earlier  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  And  not  only 
so,  but  they  were  able  to  divest  themselves  of  the  markedly 
less  anthropomorphic  language  of  their  own  day  and  speak, 
without  betraying  themselves,  in  the  spiritual  dialect  of 
their  ruder  ancestors.  All  this  seems  inconceivable,  but 
it  is  beside  tiie  present  point. 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  41 

and  even  required  a  penalty  equal  to  the  injury 
in  judicial  judgments.  But  in  all  these  things  the 
same  Scriptures  taught  that  this  was  suffered  for 
the  time  because  of  the  hardness  of  men's  hearts. 
Man  cannot  be  suddenly  lifted  from  a  very  low  to 
a  high  spiritual  level.  He  must  be  raised  little  by 
little,  as  children  are  trained.  Yet,  at  the  same 
time,with  this  forbearance  and  gentle  dealing  with 
man's  infirmities,  God  made  known  His  true  will 
with  sufficient  plainnesss.  He  did  create  man 
male  and  female  in  a  single  pair,  and  He  did 
command,  ''  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self "  (Lev.  xix :  i8). 

But  it  is  further  said,  that  men  were  *'  raised  up 
by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  "  for  the  deliverance  of 
Israel,  like  Ehud,  Samson,  and  others,  who  did 
very  strange  and  very  wicked  things.  These  men 
were  raised  up  for  a  noble  purpose,  but  in  the 
execution  of  it  they  were  guided  by  their  own  im- 
perfect light  and  erring  judgment,  and  perhaps 
often  swayed  far  more  than  they  knew  by  human 
passion.  But  besides  these,  there  were  men  ''after 
God's  own  heart,"  Avhom  He  loved  and  blessed, 
and  yet  who  were  guilty  of  very  abominable 
crimes.  "  What,"  it  is  asked,  "  was  the  holiness 
which  could  bear  with  such  things?"  But  is  God 
to  be  held  responsible  for  every  ill-advised  or  even 
wrong  act  which  a  man  may  do  who  has  set  out 
with  an  earnest  desire  to  serve  Him?  Do  we 
now  reduce  our  conception  of  the  holiness  of  our 
heavenly  Father  to  the  level  of  the  imperfect 
lives  of  those  who  profess  to  serve  Him?     Then 


43  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

why  should  we  do  so  in  judging  of  those  far  away 
ages?  It  is  the  just  rule  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment that  a  man's  responsibility  should  be  pro- 
portioned to  his  knowledge  of  the  divine  will. 
Now,  take  which  you  will  of  the  heroes  of  old, 
and  cut  off  the  Bible  at  the  point  at  which  he 
lived,  and  then  compare  his  religious  knowledge 
with  our  own.  But  further,  if  any  of  the  more 
extended  stories  of  the  Old  Testament  are  care- 
fully examined,  it  will  be  found  that  men  were 
made  to  suffer  for  their  sins,  though  God  might 
still  love  and  bless  the  penitent  sinner.  There  is 
really  no  difficulty  in  any  of  the  things  alleged 
when  the  story  is  read  in  the  light  of  the  times 
to  which  it  belongs.  The  difficulties  only  become 
insoluble  when  the  narratives  and  commands  are 
supposed  to  have  been  written  in  a  later  and  more 
enlightened  age. 

But  however  these  thing  may  be,  and  whatever 
difficulties  may  arise  from  the  lives  of  the  saints 
of  old,  or  from  things  suffered  or  commanded  in 
dealing  with  the  hardness  of  men's  hearts,  every- 
where in  the  sacred  books  God  Himself  appears 
in  unutterable  and  perfect  holiness.  No  such 
conception  of  the  divine  Being  as  is  given  in  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  has  ever  been  elsewhere  at- 
tained. Plato  did  not  rise  so  high.  Is  it  likely 
that  it  was  of  merely  human  evolution? 

The  teaching  of  the  different  religions  about 
the  relation  of  man  towards  God  is  really  as 
strongly  contrasted,  but  it   is  less  easy  to   express 


I 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  43 

it  clearly  in  words.  The  spiritually-minded  man 
in  every  age  and  in  every  land  has  had  a  deep 
consciousness  of  sin,  not  merely  as  the  transgres- 
sion of  a  definite  command,  but  as  a  moral  offense 
against  God.  The  expression  of  the  Roman 
poet, 

Video  meliora,  proboqiie  ;  Deteriora  sequor, 

embodies  the  experience  of  all  men  everywhere. 
We  cannot  therefore  here  make  an  absolute  dis- 
tinction between  Israel  and  other  people.  God 
has  not  left  himself  anywhere  without  witness. in 
the  hearts  and  consciences  of  men.  There  were 
philosophers  in  Greece  and  Rome,  perhaps  also  in 
India,  in  China,  and  in  Egypt,  and  it  may  be,  too, 
common  people,  of  whom  we  have  no  record,  led 
by  their  consciences  into  some  realization  of  the 
true  nature  of  sin.  Nevertheless,  in  a  broad  view 
of  the  public  and  authoritative  teachings  of  the 
different  religions,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  while  the 
sacred  books  of  the  Hebrews  regarded  sin  as  a 
moral  offense  against  an  all-holy  Being,  in  the 
prevailing  view  of  other  religions  it  was  sim.ply  a 
displeasure  to  powerful  existences  who  might  re- 
sent it  by  the  infliction  of  injury  and  suffering. 
This  distinction  cannot,  of  course,  be  absolutely 
maintained  ;  for  in  the  benighted  and  heathenish 
condition  in  which  so  large  a  part  of  Israel  were 
sunk,  it  became  necessary  for  their  restraint  to 
put  prominently  forward  the  power  of  God,  and 
the  danger  of  incurring  His  displeasure.  Yet  all 
will  recognize  that,  on  the  whole,  there  was  a  dis- 
tinction, and  an  important  distinction,  of  this  kind 


44  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

between  the  teaching .  of  the  different  reHgions, 
and  that  this  led  to  widely  different  views  of 
what  constituted  sin.  The  voice  of  conscience  in 
man  was  never  entirely  stifled,  and  there  were 
thoughtful  men  everywhere  who  recognized  moral 
distinctions;  but  generally  it  was  true  among  the 
heathen  that  sin  was  looked  upon  rather  as  a  mere 
transgression  of  the  laws  of  nature — a  mistake,  a 
folly — but  with  little  of  moral  quality ;  or  else  a 
displeasure  to  the  magnified  men,  with  the  pas- 
sions and  caprices  of  men,  whom  they  worshiped 
as  gods,  and  ill-advised,  so  far  as  it  was  likely  to 
awaken  their  animosity.  In  contrast  with  all  this, 
sin  stands  out  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  as  some- 
thing opposed  to  the  will  and  character  of  One  infi- 
nite in  holiness  and  purity,  and  forever  unchange- 
able in  purpose.  Between  these  extremes  there 
was  every  variety  of  conception  of  sin,  determined 
by  the  varying  conception  of  God,  and  of  man's 
relation  to  Him  ;  but  as  the  Hebrew  idea  of  God 
was  higher  than  any  other,  so  was  its  view  of  sin 
as  a  moral  offense  far  deeper.  It  cannot  be  raid 
absolutely  that  such  views  were  entirely  incapable 
of  human  development,  for  some  approach  to  the 
Hebrew  idea  is  found  among  the  deeper  spiritual 
thinkers  of  other  lands  ;  but  nowhere  else  is 
it  made  the  prominent  and  authoritative  teaching 
of  a  religious  system.  In  China  filial  duty  in 
some  degree  supplies  the  place  of  duty  to  God, 
and  in  ancient  Egypt  the  responsibility  of  man 
to  the  Judge  of  the  dead  was  made  veiy  promi- 
nent ;  but  the  point  and  essence  of  the  responsi' 


Origin  of  Israel's  Reliuion.  45 

bility  is  in  the  fulfillment  of  our  duties  to  our  fel- 
low man.  In  both  cases,  beyond  the  merest  ob- 
servance of  ceremonial,  there  is  no  real  requirement 
of  a  right  disposition  of  the  heart  and  the  affec- 
tions towards  God  Himself.  This  is  the  hardest 
of  all  lessons  for  man  to  learn.  He  is  ever  ready 
to  limit  his  duty  by  outward  obligations,  and  to 
acknowledge  sin  only  in  the  failure  to  observe 
them.  Only  in  Israel  is  the  first  and  greatest 
of  all  the  commandments,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy 
soul,  and  with  all  thy  might"  (Deut.  vi  ;  5);  and 
nowhere  else  do  we  find  failure  in  this  authorita- 
tively recognized  as  a  moral  offense,  as  sin. 

Is  it  more  probable  that  the  sages  of  Israel  worked 
out  this  deepest  of  all  relations  from  their  own 
understanding  and  embodied  it  in  their  earliest 
law,  or  that  they  were  taught  it  from  on  high  ? 

Closely  related  with  the  idea  of  sin  was  the 
practice  of  sacrifice.  This  practice,  whencesoever 
derived,  was  substantially  universal  in  the  ancient 
world.  Everywhere  among  men  there  was  a  con- 
sciousness of  having  offended  the  superior  powers 
and  an  effort  to  propitiate  them  by  sacrifice.  The 
Hebrew  sacrifices,  however,  are  so  distinguished 
from  those  of  other  nations  in  two  points  as  to 
make  them  an  essentially  different  institution, 
(i)  Elsewhere  sacrifice  might  be  offered  by  any 
one,  without  regard  to  his  character ;  and  (2)  it 
was  customary  to  increase  the  value  of  the  offer- 
ing— even  to  the  extent  sometimes  of  providing 
human  victims — in  proportion  to  the  magnitude 


46  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

of  the  offense.  The  underlying  idea,  therefore,  of 
these  sacrifices,  was  the  offering  to  the  offended 
deity  an  equivalent  for  the  offense — a  quid  pi'o 
quo,  a  compensation  for  the  wrong  done — so  that 
no  further  penalty  could  justly  be  exacted.  Hence 
there  was  very  little  of  a  moral  character  about 
the  transaction.  If  the  offerer  had  returned  a 
sufficient  compensation  he  was  quit,  and  the  mat- 
ter ended.  It  is  no  wonder  that  such  men  as 
Socrates  sav/  the  folly  of  such  sacrifice.  They 
knew  the  institution  only  in  its  perversion,  and 
had  no  means  of  finding  out  its  deeper  and  truer 
use.  In  Israel  it  was  far  otherwise.  Sacrifices 
were  allowed  by  the  law  only  for  ^'  sins  of  ignor- 
ance " — rather  of  inadvertence,  of  carelessness,  of 
being  led  away  by  temptation  and  passion ;  for  sins 
committed  with  a  ''  high  hand,"  with  a  full  knowl- 
edge of  their  wrongfulness  and  the  defiance  of  a 
proud  heart,  no  sacrifice  was  allowed  (Num.  xv : 
30;  Deut.  xvii :  12).  This  fact  alone  gives  a  to- 
tally different  character  to  sacrifice  in  the  two 
cases,  because  it  introduces  a  moral  element,  and 
makes  their  acceptance  depend  upon  motive  and 
character. 

The  second  point  is,  if  possible,  still  more  dis- 
tinctive. While  the  idea  of  sacrificial  compensa- 
tion was  carried  out  among  the  heathen  by  pro- 
portioning the  number  and  value  of  the  victims 
to  the  greatness  of  the  offense,  nothing  of  this 
kind  was  so  much  as  allowed  by  the  Hebrew  law. 
The  sin  offering  in  every  case  must  be  the  same, 
the   she-goat — the   commonest    and    cheapest    of 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  47 

the  domestic  animals.*  Whole  burnt  offerings 
might  be  increased,  and  peace  offerings,  those 
feasts  of  communion  with  God,  might  be  indefi- 
nitely multiplied  ;  but  for  the  atoning  sin-offering 
only  and  always  the  same  simple  victim.  The 
lesson  hereby  taught  is  plain :  sacrifices  in  them- 
selves had  no  compensatory  value.  There  was 
no  correlation  between  the  animal  victim  and 
human  sin ;  "  for  it  is  not  possible  that  the 
blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away 
sin"  (Heb.  X  :  4).  The  value  of  sacrifices  there- 
fore could  be  but  symbolic.  What  the  symbol- 
ism meant  it  might  not  be  given  to  the  ancient 
Israelite  to  know;  but  it  must  have  been  clear, 
even  to  him,  that  they  had  in  themselves  no  in- 
herent efficacy  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  This  is 
brought  out  still  more  clearly  by  the  fact  that 
they  had  an  intrinsic  ceremonial  value.  The 
''  unclean  "  were  restored  by  them  to  their  stand- 
ing in  the  theocratic  community ;  ''  the  ashes  of 
the  heifer"  did  '' sanctify  to  the  purifying  of  the 
flesh."  But  only  symbolically  and  in  view  of 
character  did  the  sacrifices  avail  to  the  restora- 
tion of  communion  between  the  soul  and  God. 

Now,  to  suppose  such  a  system  of  sacrifice,  so 
unlike  that  of  any  other  nation,  so  far  reaching  in 
its  meaning,  and  yet  so  adapted  to  a  spiritually 
debased  people,  keeping  alive  in  them  the  sense 

*  A  difference  in  the  victim  was  required  in  the  case  of  a 
prince  or  of  the  high-priest  b}^  reason  of  the  conspicuous- 
ness  of  their  offenses,  and,  correspondingly,  a  smaller 
offering  in  the  case  of  extreme  poverty  ;  hnt  there  was  no 
variation  in  view  of  the  greatness  of  the  sin. 


48  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

of  sin  and  yet  pointing  to  something  better  as 
the  true  atonement  for  sin — to  suppose  such  a  sys- 
tem to  have  been  evolved  by  the  philosphers  of 
Judea  and  adopted  by  the  Jews,  seems  by  many 
degrees  more  improbable  than  that  it  was  given 
them  from  on  high. 

In  the  Hebrew  religion  the  ground  of  man's 
acceptance  with  God  was  neither  sacrifice  nor 
ceremonial  observance,  though  these  were  re- 
quired, but  faith — a  trust  in  God,  bringing  the 
whole  heart  and  life  into  dependence  upon  Him 
and  harmony  with  His  will.  This  is  set  forth  in 
the  story  of  the  heroes  of  old,  and  especially  in 
that  of  the  father  of  Israel.  It  is  so  prominent 
in  the  Psalms  and  in  the  teaching  of  the  prophets 
that  some  have  imagined  it  to  be  a  doctrine  in- 
vented by  them,  and  that  the  ancient  tales  of  the 
people  Vv'ere  written  or  at  least  worked  over  by 
them  to  illustrate  and  enforce  their  views.  But 
it  is  difficult  to  suppose  this  unless  a  wholly  im- 
aginary story  has  supplanted  the  historic  facts,  so 
deeply  is  this  principle  interwoven  with  the  whole 
history  of  the  people.  In  Heb.  xi,  it  is  pointed 
out  that  Judaism  was  at  one  with  the  Gospel  in 
this  matter,  because  from  Abel  down  this  had 
always  been  the  one  ground  of  man's  acceptance 
with  God.  It  is  earnestly  insisted  upon  by  the 
prophets  through  a  course  of  several  centuries ; 
it  appears  abundantly  in  the  Psalms  and  in  the 
story  of  Job.  Make  all  possible  allowance  for  in- 
terpolation or  embellishment,  there  yet  must  have 
been  some  basis  of   fact  in  Israel's  history ;  and 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  43 

down  at  its  very  bottom,  and  reaching  up  into  all 
its  outgrowth,  this  principle  is  everywhere.  Even 
in  the  Hves  of  the  most  unlovable  of  the  Judges, 
in  the  stories  of  the  most  cruel  wars,  in  the  history 
of  men  of  such  guilty  weakness  as  Jacob  or  Eli, 
and  of  such  daring  transgression  as  David  or  Jehu 
— everywhere  the  one  redeeming  feature  which,  if 
it  did  not  overbalance  yet  mitigated  the  sin,  and 
drew  down  some  degree  of  blessing,  was  the  prin- 
ciple of  trust  in  God.  This  was  not  the  mere 
feeling,  common  to  all  nations,  that  "  the  God  of 
armies "  must  be  on  the  side  of  the  narrator's 
party,  but  was  a  reliance  of  the  individual  upon 
God  and  a  readiness  to  accept  and  do  His  will,  even 
against  their  own  inclinations.  Everywhere,  from 
the  oldest  patriarchal  story  to  the  latest  utter- 
ance of  the  sacred  volume,  there  is  one  and  the 
same  teaching ;  ''  his  soul  which  is  lifted  up  is  not 
upright  in  him ;  but  the  just  shall  live  by  his 
faith '' — by  his  calm  trust  in  God. 

The  Gospel  teaches  that  this  is  the  essential 
principle  of  all  true  rel';;,ion ;  but  how  did  Israel 
know  it  ?  Here  and  there  the  truth  was  more  or 
less  clearly  seen  by  one  and  another  of  the  sages 
of  antiquity;  in  Israel  it  was  the  fundamental 
teaching  by  the  most  varied  teachers  during  more 
than  a  millennium  of  most  changing  fortune.  How 
were  those  rude  ages  and  those  rough  men  of 
action  able  to  grasp  that  principle  Avhich,  even 
in  our  times,  it  has  ever  proved  so  difficult  to 
keep  alive  in  the  hearts  of  men?  It  seems  almost 
an  insult    to  the   understanding  to   ask  whether 


50  Pentateuchal  Criticism, 

it  could  have  been  a  merely  human  develop^ 
ment. 

It  does  not  matter  how  Httle  or  how  much  the 
ordinary  Hebrew  may  have  recognized  and  acted 
upon  this  principle.  It  avails  nothing  to  say  that 
the  men  who  illustrate  it  were  remarkable  and 
exceptional.  We  do  not  know  how  far  this  is 
true.  When  Elijah  thought  himself  quite  alone  in 
fearing  the  true  God,  he  was  told,  ''  Yet  I  have 
left  me  seven  thousand  in  Israel,  all  the  knees 
which  have  not  bowed  unto  Baal"  (i  Kings  xix  : 
1 8).  It  is  always  impossible  for  us  to  look  into 
other  men's  hearts,  doubly  impossible  to  judge 
correctly  of  the  inner  motives  of  those  separated 
from  us  by  thousands  of  years.  But  this  does 
not  matter  in  the  argument.  The  point  is,  that 
whether  the  people  heard,  or  whether  they  fore- 
bore,  this  was  the  teaching  of  their  religion.  And 
there  is  no  parallel  to  it  elsewhere  in  the  world. 

It  may  be  objected  that  this  must  be  a  partial 
representation,  since  the  religion  of  Israel  was 
confessedly  so  largely  ceremonial.  But  there 
was  certainly  no  ceremonial  law  down  to  the  time 
of  Moses ;  and  if  (which  the  objectors  deny)  it 
was  given  then,  it  could  have  been  but  slightly 
observed  during  the  wanderings  in  the  wilderness, 
since  even  its  fundamental  rite  of  circumcision  was 
neglected  during  this  whole  period  (Josh,  v  :  2-7) ; 
further,  it  must  have  been  largely  in  abeyance 
during  the  troubled  time  of  the  Judges;  and  it 
certainly  could  not  have  been  carried  out  dur- 
ing  the    separation    of  the    ark    and  the  taber- 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  51 

nacle  in  the  reigns  of  Saul  and  David.  Thus  its 
full  observance  only  became  possible  after  the 
building  of  Solomon's  temple,  leaving,  at  the  most, 
but  two  centuries  before  the  voice  of  the  prophets 
begins  clearly  to  exalt  the  inward  disposition  of 
the  heart  above  the  outward  forms  of  the  ritual. 
It  is  impossible,  chronologically,  that  the  cere- 
monial law  could,  for  any  great  length  of  time, 
have  obscured  the  higher  teaching  of  faith  ;  and 
during  this  short  period  there  were,  on  the  one 
hand,  some  spiritual  leaders,  and  on  the  part  of 
the  people  continual  opposition  and  revolt  against 
the  law.  The  general  result,  therefore,  cannot 
have  been  very  deeply  affected  in  those  early 
times  by  the  ceremonial  law ;  and  even  the  law 
itself,  as  has  been  seen  in  regard  to  the  sacrifices 
and  as  is  equally  true  in  other  points,  was  but  a 
guard  arranged  to  prevent  apostasy  from  the  prin- 
ciple of  faith. 

The  ceremonial  law  has  formed  the  gist  of  re- 
cent controversies  about  the  antiquity  of  the  re- 
ligious system  of  the  Israelites.  "  If,"  it  is  asked, 
"  the  fundamental  principle  of  that  system  was 
so  true  and  spiritual,  how  came  it  to  be  overlaid 
by  a  mass  of  detailed  and  often  petty  precepts, 
by  a  rigid  and  elaborate  ritual,  and  by  a  sternly 
fixed  priestly  hierarchy  ?  '* 

Two  answers  have  been  given.  One  is  that  of 
St.  Paul,  that  the  law  ''was  added  because  of 
transgressions  "  (Gal.  iii :  19),  and  that  it  "  was  our 
schoolmaster  to  bring  us  to  Christ  "  (id.  24) ;  the 


53  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

other,  put  forward  by  certain  recent  critics,  is,  that 
it  was  a  gradual  growth  of  ordinances  under  the 
influence  of  men  who  had  usurped  priestly  power 
and  functions.  They  maintain  that  while  certain 
germs  of  it  may  have  been  handed  down  from 
very  ancient  times,  it  had  its  formal  beginning 
about  the  reign  of  Josiah,  and  received  its  great 
development  during  the  Babylonian  captivity,  es- 
pecially under  the  influence  of  the  prophet-priest, 
Ezekiel,  but  did  not  take  its  final  shape  until  the 
remnant  of  the  people  had  returned  and  been 
settled  again  in  their  ancestral  land.  These  critics 
are  not  disturbed  by  the  many  incongruities  be- 
tween their  theory  and  the  facts  of  Scripture  his- 
tory; for  they  regard  much  of  the  history  as  a 
more  or  less  garbled  narrative,  compiled  in  the 
interest  of  the  priestly  class.  Without  here  en- 
tering into  the  question  of  the  reliability  of  the 
history,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  while  St.  Paul's 
statement  gives  a  clear  and  satisfactory  view  of 
the  whole  matter,  an  examination  of  the  theory 
of  the  critics  will  show  it  to  be  improbable  and 
self-destructive. 

In  the  first  place,  with  what  purpose  in  view 
could  men  have  worked  out  such  an  elaborate 
system  as  the  Levitical  law  ?  There  are  many 
instances  of  arrogant  hierarchical  systems  amon^ 
ancient  nations,  as  well  as  in  corrupt  forms  of 
Christianity  ;  but  in  all  the  system  has  ministered 
to  the  wealth  or  to  the  power  of  the  priesthood 
by  whom  it  is  upheld.  If  men  assert  a  human 
development  for  the  law,  they  must  find  a  sufifi- 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  53 

cient  human  motive.  Now,  the  fact  stares  us  in 
the  face,  that  at  no  period  of  history,  until  long 
after  the  captivity,  were  the  priests  of  Israel  either 
a  wealthy  or  a  powerful  body.  Undoubtedly  the 
priest  was  always  regarded  as  a  sacred  person, 
and  the  high-priest  was  a  man  of  sufficient  influ- 
ence to  make  the  conquerors  or  suzerains  of  Judea 
take  care  to  secure  a  person  in  this  post  devoted 
to  their  interests.  But  this  does  not  meet  the 
point ;  what  provision  w^as  made  in  the  law  itself 
for  the  power  and  emoluments  of  the  priests?  At 
the  outset,  it  was  not  Aaron,  but  Moses  who  was 
chosen  to  be  the  leader  and  lawgiver  of  the 
people  ;  and  Aaron,  though  high-priest,  was  in  a 
wholly  subordinate  position.  He  and  his  descend- 
ants, and  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi,  were  cut  off 
from  inheritance  with  their  fellow  tribes  in  the 
division  of  land,  except  mere  cities  of  residence 
scattered  among  the  other  tribes.  For  their  sup- 
port the  tithes  of  the  increase  of  the  other  tribes 
was  assigned  to  the  Levites,  and  from  them  in 
turn  the  priests  were  to  receive  their  tithes  and 
also  certain  portions  of  the  sacrifices.  This  seems, 
at  first  sight,  an  ample  provision,  and  to  have 
given  the  Levites  a  larger  income  than  their 
brethren.  The  Levites  were  only  one  tribe  and 
were  to  receive  a  tenth  of  the  increase  of  twelve 
tribes  ;  the  priests  were  but  a  subdivision  of  one 
of  the  three  great  Levitical  families,  and  they 
were  to  receive  a  tenth  of  the  income  of  the 
whole.  But  how  was  the  collection  of  these 
tithes   to  be    enforced  ?     For   this   there  was  no 


54  Pentateuciial  Criticism. 

other  provision  whatever  than  the  influence  of 
moral  obhgation.  What  would  be  the  revenue  of 
a  modern  state  and  the  salaries  of  its  officers  if  the 
payment  of  taxes  rested  only  upon  men's  sense  of 
duty?  In  truth,  all  the  incidental  notices  of  the 
Levites,  down  to  the  time  of  David,  represent 
them  as  poor,  and  as  easily  tempted  to  sacrifice 
the  purity  of  their  religion  for  the  merest  sup- 
port, and  they  are  spoken  of  in  the  law  as  objects 
for  the  charity  of  the  people.  In  all  the  various 
notices  of  the  great  and  wealthy  men  among  the 
tribes  of  Israel,  there  is  no  single  mention  of  a 
priest  or  a  Levite  among  them.  Of  course,  it 
occasionally  happened  that  a  priest  rose  to  power, 
as  any  other  man  might.  Among  the  Judges  of 
Israel  there  was  one,  Eli,  who  was  a  high-priest, 
and  another,  Samuel,  who  was  a  Levite  ;  but 
nearly  all  the  leaders  and  rulers  of  Israel,  from 
Joshua  down,  were  of  other  tribes.  If,  then,  the 
Levitical  law  w^as  devised  by  the  priests,  it  was  so 
devised  in  opposition  to  all  experience  of  human 
nature,  as  to  bring  to  themselves  neither  wealth 
nor  power.  They  exerted  a  certain  moral  influ- 
ence, and  sometimes  were  advisers  of  the  kings,  as 
e,  g.y  Abiathar  was  to  David,  under  very  peculiar 
circumstances  ;  yet  even  in  this  case  the  prophets 
Nathan  and  Gad  appear  to  have  had  more  influ- 
ence, and  Abiathar  was  at  last  deposed  altogether 
from  the  high-priesthood  by  Solomon.  Peculiar 
circumstances  gave  Jehoiada  great  power  over  the 
youthful  Joash,  but  when  the  old  high-priest  died 
his  successors  could  not  keep  Joash  from  apostasy 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  55 

(2  Chr.  xxiv :  17,  etc.),  and  it  was  not  to  the 
priests  but  to  the  prophet  Zechariah  that  the 
fatal  duty  was  entrusted  of  remonstrating  with 
him  for  his  sin  {ib.  20,  22).  When  Ave  come  down 
to  the  times  of  the  writing  prophets,  represented 
on  the  theory  of  the  critics  as  teachers  of  a  more 
spiritual  religion  which  the  priests  were  pervert- 
ing to  ceremonialism,  two  of  the  greater  of  them, 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  and  we  know  not  how 
many  of  the  minor,  were  themselves  priests.  Fur- 
ther, in  all  the  charges  brought  against  the  priests 
for  their  sins,  the  acquisition  of  power  is  not  men- 
tioned. On  the  return  from  the  captivity,  Ezra  is 
prominent  in  the  organization  of  the  restored 
state  ;  but  it  is  more  in  his  capacity  as  a  scribe, 
learned  in  the  law,  than  as  a  priest,  and  even  so, 
he  is  entirely  subordinate  to  Nehemiah,  the  civil 
governor.* 

There  was  always,  it  is  true,  a  sharp  distinction 
between  the  functions  of  the  priest  and  the  lay- 
man, and  the  latter,  however  exalted  in  station, 
was  never  allowed,  from  the  days  of  Korah  to 
those  of  Uzzah,  to  intrude  on  the  duties  pecu- 
liarly reserved  to  the  priesthood.  This  fact,  quite 
unique  among  the  nations,  and  very  necessary 
for  the  preservation  of  the  true  religion,  had  no 
small  effect  in  separating  the  priesthood  from 
secular  affairs  and  confining  tliem  to  their  proper 
duties.     In   the  ritual  of  worship  they  were   su- 

*It  will  be  noted  what  a  curious  history  this  is  to  have 
been  largely  fabricated  by  the  priests  for  tlieir  own  ag- 
prrandizement. 


56  Pentateuciial  Criticism. 

preme ;  in  the  exposition  of  the  law  they  were 
most  famiHar  with  its  details,  and  therefore  its 
best  interpreters ;  they  had  also  various  functions 
of  announcing  the  fast  days,  deciding  questions 
of  uncleanness,  etc.,  so  they  were  an  important 
factor  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Israel  whenever 
much  regard  was  paid  to  the  law.  But  outside  of 
these  prescribed  duties  they  never  appear  as  men 
of  special  consideration.  Certainly,  if  they  de- 
vised the  Levitical  law  they  could  not  have  done 
so  for  their  own  aggrandizement ;  or  if  they  did, 
history  has  recorded  no  more  conspicuous  failure. 

The  theory,  then,  that  the  Levitical  law  was 
gradually  developed  by  the  priests  for  their  own 
benefit,  is  plainly  insufficient  and  not  in  accord- 
ance with  the  facts.  Before  taking  up  the  other 
answer,  given  by  St.  Paul,  a  rapid  glance  must  be 
taken  at  the  prominent  features  of  the  law  itself. 
Many  of  its  precepts  were  simply  intended  to 
make  Israel  a  peculiar  people  and  prevent  their 
too  close  mingling  with  men  of  other  religions. 
Were  these  more  likely  to  have  been  given  at  the 
outset,  when  there  was  no  insuperable  difficulty 
in  their  observance,  or  is  it  more  probable  that 
they  grew  up  after  Israel  had  been  for  centuries 
inextricably  involved  in  the  political  struggles  of 
her  more  powerful  neighbors  ?  • 

A  very  large  part  of  the  detailed  precepts  of 
the  law  may  be  classed  as  educational  —  rules  de- 
signed to  train  for  a  tim.e  spiritual  children  until 
they  should  be  able  to  receive  the  principles  on 
which  they  rested.     If  we  compare  the  principles 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  57 

of  morality  and  virtue  as  they  are  set  forth  in 
Christianity  and  in  the  various  heathen  reh'gions, 
it  is  evident  that  the  training  provided  by  the 
precepts  of  the  Mosaic  law  was  a  preparation  for 
the  former  and  not  for  the  latter.  This  relation 
of  Judaism  to  Christianity  is  amply  recognized  by 
all  the  teachers  of  the  latter,  and  it  is  historically 
abundantly  evident  that  the  Gospel  arose  out  of 
Judaism,  as  it  could  not  have  arisen  out  of  any 
form  of  heathenism.  Can  it  be  supposed  that 
a  system  of  legislation  should  have  been  gradually 
evolved,  providing  petty  precepts  for  a  narrow- 
minded  nation  and  seeking  to  isolate  them  from 
all  other  people,  and  yet,  as  shown  by  the  result, 
designed  to  prepare  them  for  the  broad  principles 
of  a  world-wide  religion  in  the  future  ? 

Many  other  interesting  features  of  the  Hebrew 
law  must  be  wholly  passed  by — such  as  the  value 
attached  to  human  life,  the  separation  of  the  civil 
and  the  ecclesiastical  functions,  the  equality  of 
every  Israelite  before  the  law,  and  especially  the 
absence  of  any  provision  for  fresh  legislation  until 
the  coming  of  that  Great  Prophet  to  whom  it  looked 
forward.  These,  and  many  others,  constituted 
peculiarities  each  of  which  adds  weight  to  the 
general  argument  and  increases  the  improbability 
that  the  system  was  of  merely  human  evolution  ; 
but  they  cannot  here  be  treated. 

We  may  now  turn  to  St.  Paul's  answer  to  the 
question,  ''Wherefore  then  the  law?"  He  had 
been  maintaining  that  "  the  gospel  was  preached 
before  unto  Abraham,"  to    which    this   question 


58  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

came  as  an  objection.  He  gives  a  two- fold  reply: 
(i)  ''  It  was  added  because  of  transgressions,"  and 
(2) ''  It  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  to  Christ." 
The  force  of  the  first  reason  is  plain,  and  the 
whole  history  of  Israel  is  an  illustration  of  it. 
The  nation  who  could  worship  a  golden  calf  in 
the  shadow  of  Sinai,  and  commit  themselves  to  the 
abominations  of  the  Canaanites,  and  could  again 
and  again  apostatize,  surely  needed  some  strin- 
gent law  ''because  of  transgressions,"  lest  the 
knowledge  of  God  should  altogether  perish 
from  the  world.  Hence,  in  view  of  the  necessity 
of  the  case,  there  is  no  such  incongruity  of  the 
%iw  having  been  *'  added  "  in  old  time  to  the  teach- 
ing of  faith  as  there  would  have  been  in  its  evo- 
lution at  a  later  age  among  a  people  taught  by 
the  prophets  for  centuries.  The  other  answer, 
that  "it  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  to 
Christ,"  is  involved  in  the  whole  preparatory 
office  of  the  Hebrew  religion,  and  is  historically 
true.  It  did  lead  to  Christ  all  that  portion  of  the 
people  who  "  looked  for  redemption,"  *'  many 
myriads  of  the  people,"  and  "  a  great  company  of 
the  priests." 

In  view  of  such  recognized  facts,  the  answer  of 
St.  Paul  seems  more  probable  than  the  other. 
Such  an  answer  by  no  means  excludes  from  the 
law  the.  action  of  human  thought  and  sagacity, 
nor  progress  in  revelation  in  accordance  with  the 
needs  of  man ;  but  the  point  is,  that  through 
however   much   of    human   instrumentality,   the 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  59 

origin  of  the  religion  of  Israel,  in  its  essential  fea- 
tures and  purpose,  was  from  above. 

Something  has  been  said  of  the  preparatory  re- 
lation of  Judaism  to  Christianity  ;  at  least  a  glance 
must  now  be  given  to  the  completing  relation  of 
Christianity  to  Judaism.  Doubtless  there  is  im- 
portant truth  in  every  religion  which  has  held 
wide  and  long  sway  over  the  minds  of  men.  St. 
Paul,  on  Mars  Hill,  wisely  recognized  fundamental 
truths  in  the  Athenian  belief.  But  the  attitude 
of  Christianity  towards  Judaism  is  very  much 
more  than  this.  Our  Lord  taught  that  He  had 
come  "  to  fulfill  the  law  and  the  prophets,"  and  on 
the  road  to  Emmaus  He  expounded  ''all  things 
in  the  law  and  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms 
concerning  "  Himself.  St.  Peter  at  Pentecost,  St. 
James  at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  St.  Paul  be- 
fore Agrippa,  all  take  the  ground  that  Christianity 
was  the  foreseen  and  designed  accomplishment 
of  the  ancient  Scriptures.  Throughout  the  New 
Testament,  in  every  form  of  utterance,  teaching, 
narrative,  exhortation,  argument,  it  is  constantly 
reiterated  by  our  Lord  Himself,  and  by  all  those 
whom  He  commisioned,  that  the  Gospel  was  the 
intended  fulfillment  and  culmination  of  the  law. 
Whether  this  ground  was  well  taken  or  not,  the 
whole  position  of  the  New  Testament  in  this 
respect  is  indisputable. 

Now  in  this  the  New  Testament  speakers  and 
writers  were  either  right  or  wrong.  If  they  were 
wrong — setting  aside  all  question  of  inspiration — 


60  "Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

we  have  the  astounding  phenomenon  that  the 
best  men  of  their  race,  in  their  spiritual  apprehen- 
sion, carefully  trained  in,  and  earnestly  attached  to, 
the  religion  of  their  fathers,  should  have  so  utterly 
misunderstood  its  whole  nature  and  purpose.  It 
will  not  do  to  say  that,  being  men  of  earnest  spir- 
itual instincts,  they  accepted  the  new  religion, 
and  yet  being  still  attached  to  the  old,  sought  to 
find  in  it  parallels  and  premonitions  of  the  new; 
their  Avhole  attitude  is  different.  The  connection 
they  find  is  not  in  external  resemblances,  far  from 
it ;  but  in  the  depth  of  its  underlying  principles 
and  in  its  own  fundamental  expectations.  They 
had  been  trained  in  a  religion  of  the  narrowest  na- 
tional exclusiveness ;  they  preached  one  of  world- 
wide breadth  and  comprehensiveness.  They  had 
been  taught  a  religion,  on  its  surface  at  least  and 
as  expounded  by  their  doctors,  of  outward  cere- 
mony ;  they  proclaimed  one  of  the  purest  spir- 
ituality. They  had  been  accustomed  to  the 
gorgeous  magnificence  of  the  temple  and  its  out- 
wardly sensuous  worship  ;  they  announced,  as  the 
acceptable  service  to  God,  the  simplest  worship 
"  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  They  had  been  all  edu- 
cated in  the  servitude  of  multitudinous  precepts, 
and  these  they  now  declared  were  "  a  yoke 
which  neither  we  nor  our  fathers  were  able  to 
bear,"  and  reannounced  the  old  principle  of  faith 
as  that  which  alone  makes  man  acceptable  to 
God.  It  were  hard  to  conceive  of  a  greater  con- 
trast to  the  outward  eye  and  to  the  superficial 
thought  than  was  presented  between  the  Judaism 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  CI 

and  the  Christianity  of  apostolic  days.  So  the 
unbelieving  Jews  regarded  it,  and  persecuted  to 
the  death  those  who,  they  considered,  had  apos- 
tatized from  the  ancestral  faith.  Nevertheless, 
all  the  earlier  promulgators  of  Christianity  with 
one  view  steadfastly  afifirmed  that  the  religion 
was  essentially  the  same,  and  that  the  Gospel  was 
but  the  designed  culmination  of  the  law  and  the 
realization  of  the  "  new  covenant  "  which  the  God 
of  Israel  had  promised  to  make  with  His  people. 
They  started  in  their  preaching  from  the  syna- 
gogue, and  the  Old  Testament  was  everywhere 
the  foundation  of  their  reasoning. 

Now,  if  all  this  was  an  entire  error,  in  the  men 
who  made  the  mistake  and  in  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  was  made,  it  was  one  of  the  most 
wonderful  illusions  of  history,  and  an  illusion 
shared  by  substantially  all  believers  in  Christianity 
to  the  present  day.  It  is  a  phenomenon  without 
parallel  and  requires  explanation.  But  if  they 
were  right,  then  the  law  and  the  Gospel  must 
have  proceeded  from  the  same  source,  and  that 
source  could  have  been  none  other  than  divine. 

There  remains  one  other  point  which  is  ap- 
proached with  hesitation.  To  him  who  looks  to 
our  Lord  as  absolute  truth  and  the  Source  of 
divine  knowledge,  it  is  not  easy  to  speak  of  Him 
only  in  His  human  capacity,  and  to  think  of  the 
bearing  of  His  words  simply  as  emanating  from  a 
sinless  man.  Yet  this  task  must  now  be  essayed ; 
for,  of  course,  if  His  heavenly  authority  be  admit- 
ted, our  whole  discussion  has  been  settled  in  ad- 


63  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

vance.  Looking  at  Him  then,  only  in  His  human 
character,  what  light  does  His  life  and  teaching 
throw  upon  the  origin  of  the  religion  in  which  He 
was  born  and  trained?  There  is  no  room  for 
question  that  He  regarded  it  as  divine,  for  He 
constantly  asserts  this,  and  while  He  recognizes 
no  other  authority  upon  earth,  He  always  main- 
tains the  divine  authority  of  this.  Two  supposi- 
tions have  been  made  to  explain  His  position 
while  denying  that  it  was  right.  One,  that  He 
was  so  much  under  the  influence  of  the  preju- 
dices and  habits  of  thought  in  which  He  had  been 
trained,  that  He  did  not  Himself  see  the  falsity 
of  their  ground  ;  the  other,  that  while  He  really 
saw  this.  He  yet  did  not  think  it  wise  to  put 
Himself  in  conflict  with  the  prevailing  opinions 
and  prejudices  of  his  countrymen. 

In  regard  to  the  former,  the  general  sagacity  of 
our  Lord  must  be  admitted.  He  had  a  deep 
spiritual  insight,  and  thoroughly  understood  the 
needs  of  the  human  heart ;  He  was  able  so  far  to 
cast  Himself  loose  from  the  past  as  to  found  that 
new  religion  of  the  future  which  is  still  only  in 
the  midst  of  its  progress  ;  He  was  a  man  of  deep 
reflection,  to  whose  nature  all  shams  and  conven- 
tional deceptions  were  utterly  abhorrent — a  man 
who  sought  and  taught  only  pure  and  absolute 
truth  ;  He  was  brought  into  contact  with  all  the 
forms  in  which  the  religion  of  His  day  appeared, 
and  He  never  failed  to  pierce  and  expose,  as  with 
an  Ithuriel's  spear,  whatever  in  it  was  hollow  and 
untrue.     Of  all  who  ever  lived,  He  was  the  ''  man 


Origin  of  Israel's  Religion.  63 

in  advance  of  His  time,"  who,  unshackled  by  the 
past,  belonged  to  the  future;  nay.  He  was  the 
very  embodiment  of  the  future.  The  supposition 
that  such  an  one  was  mistaken  as  to  the  essential 
character  of  the  religion  which  He  gave  His  life 
to  complete  and  supersede,  is  simply  incredible. 
We  may  set  aside  the  theory  of  ignorance  and 
prejudice  in  '^  Jesus  of  Nazareth  "  in  this  funda- 
mental matter  of  His  whole  life,  as  a  supposi- 
tion which  can  have  no  standing  in  the  court  of 
reason. 

But  wdiile  He  knew  better,  may  He  not  have 
judged  it  wise  so  to  adapt  Himself  to  the  preju- 
dices of  His  countrymen  as  to  avoid  stirring  up 
needless  opposition  to  His  main  work?  Certainly 
his  utterances  do  not  have  the  air  of  accommoda- 
tion, but  of  positive  and  emphatic  teaching.  But 
not  to  insist  on  this,  w^hat  really  were  the  opin- 
ions with  which  He  came  in  contact?  Neither 
the  authorities  nor  the  people  seem  to  have  been 
at  all  occupied  with  any  question  as  to  the  origi- 
nal source  of  the  law ;  that  was  considered  a 
settled  point,  the  discusssion  of  which  was  not 
moved  at  all.  The  whole  question  in  which  they 
were  interested  w^as  of  the  authority  and  binding 
force  of  those  glosses  and  interpretations  by  which 
they  had  ''made  the  law  of  God  of  none  effect."  In 
the  defense  of  these  all  their  narrowness  and  party 
rancor  was  aroused,  and  to  these  our  Lord  showed 
no  consideration  or  mercy.  He  thrust  them  aside, 
and  taught  that  they  were  derogatory  to  His 
Father,  and  in  contradiction  to  the  law  itself.     In 


64  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

the  matter  of  the  law,  then,  our  Lord  did  not  con- 
form to  the  prejudices  of  His  countrymen,  but 
from  first  to  last  set  Himself  and  His  teaching  in 
absolute  contradiction  to  them.  It  was  this  that 
roused  their  hatred  and  led,  as  He  clearly  fore- 
saw%  to  His  condemnation  as  a  malefactor  and  to 
His  death  upon  the  cross. 

His  view,  therefore,  of  the  Mosaic  law  can  be 
accounted  for  in  neither  of  these  ways.  The  re- 
cord of  that  view  is  in  His  almost  every  utterance. 
It  appears  in  His  devout  submission  to  its  require- 
ments as  of  divine  authority;  in  His  reference  to 
its  teachings  as  heavenly  truth ;  in  His  citation 
of  its  statutes  as  embodying  the  duty  of  man,  and 
of  its  representations  of  the  God  of  Israel  as  abso- 
lute truth.  Even  when  He  enlarges  or  modifies 
its  precepts.  He  still  shows  that  His  teaching  was 
the  original  intention  of  the  law,  temporarily 
changed  for  "  the  hardness  of  men's  hearts."  He 
stood  firmly  and  fully  upon  the  Old  Testament 
in  all  His  promulgation  of  the  New.  He  ever 
recognized  its  authority  as  absolute  and  of  God, 
while  He  admitted  no  other  authority.  To  Him 
the  '^  law,  the  prophets,  and  the  Psalms  "  were 
sacred  books,  divinely  given.  He  certainly  was 
sufficiently  well  informed,  and  had  a  sufficiently 
deep  insight  and  sagacity.  Is  it  likely  that  there 
was  a  radical  error  on  this  fundamental  point  in 
Him  who  spake  ''  as  never  man  spake  "  ? 


SUMMARY  OF  THE  ESSAY. 

1.  Conclusions  of  Kuenen  and  others  based  on  the 

alleged  form  and  contents  of  the  Pentateuch. 

2.  Claim  made  by  the  codes  themselves  as  it  respects 

their  origin  ;  how  it  is  to  be  regarded. 

3.  Bearings  of  the  literary  problem. 

4.  All  the  laws  might  have  originated  in  the  Mosaic 

period. 

5.  The  three  phases  of  the  legislation  sufficiently  ac- 

counted for  in  the  history. 

6.  Coloring  of  the  laws,  including  linguistic  peculiari- 

ties, no  serious  objection  to  their  Mosaic  origin. 

7.  The  alleged  disproportion  between  civil  and  relig- 

ious laws  not  actual. 

8.  The  alleged  contradictions  in  the  matter  of   the 

several  codes  shown  not  to  exist  as  respects  (a) 
the  place  of  worship  ;  (b)  the  religious  festivals ; 
(6')  the  relation  between  the  priests  and  Levites ; 
(d)  the  tithes  of  crops  and  cattle ;  (e)  the  first- 
lings of  cattle ;  (/)  the  dwellings  of  priests  and 
Levites ;  (g)  the  age  at  which  a  Levite  began  his 
public  service ;  (h)  the  manumission  of  Hebrew 
servants. 


PENTATEUCH  ANALYSIS— THE  CODES. 

BT  PROF.   E.  C.  BISSELL,  D.D. 

Critics  of  the  school  of  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen 
divide  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  into  three  prin- 
cipal groups.  *  There  is  first  what  is  known  as  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx  :  23 — xxiii :  33) ; 
secondly,  the  laws  of  Deuteronomy  (xii — xxvi) ;  and 
third,  the  rest  of  the  laws  of  Exodus — Numbers,  f 
These  three  groups  of  laws  they  declare  cannot 
belong  to  any  one  period  of  the  world's  history, 
much  less  to  one  so  early  as  that  of  Moses.  It 
is  not  denied  that  this  is  the  uniform  representa- 
tion of  the  Pentateuch  itself;  but  it  is  said  that 
it  is  one  which  is  inherently  improbable  and  does 
not  harmonize  with  the  form  and  contents  of  the 

*  Excepting  only  Ex.  xii:  21-27;  xiii :  Iff.;  3-10,  11-16; 
xxxiv  :  10-27.     See  Kuenen,  *'  The  Hexateuch,"  p.  52. 

fNo  good  reason  is  given  for  excluding  the  Decalogue 
(Ex.  XX  :  1-17)  from  the  first  group  with  which  it  is  closely 
related,  especially  since  it  is  regarded  by  the  critics  named 
as  among  the  oldest  portions  of  tiie  Bible  (Kuenen,  ibid.,  p. 
24),  and  as  antedating  all  other  Israelitish  laws.  The  two 
are,  in  fact,  as  logically  bound  together  as  ever  were  text 
and  sermon.  And  whoever  wrote  this  part  of  Exodus 
clearly  intended  to  have  it  understood  that  the  so-called 
'*  ten  words,"  everywhere  represented  as  lying  at  the 
basis  of  the  covenant,  and  definitely  named  the  "tables 
of  the  covenant,"  as  the  ark  in  which  they  were  kept 
was  called  ''the  ark  of  the  covenant,"  formed  an  Bssential 
and  inseparable  part  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant.  See 
further  the  "Commentary"  of  Dillmann  in  loco;  also 
"The  Pentateuch  "  (Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  1885  ;  pp.  294, 
295). 


68  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

work.  "  Our  survey  of  the  contents  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch,"  says  Kuenen,  ^'  has  already  shown  us  to 
what  source  the  laws  it  contains  are  referred,  and 
in  what  order  they  are  communicated.  Yahwe 
reveals  them  to  Moses  and  Aaron,  or  after  the 
death  of  the  latter  to  Moses  and  Eleazer;  a 
direction  is  often  added  as  to  the  persons  to  whom 
Moses  is  to  give  them — whether  the  children  of 
Israel  or  Aaron  and  his  sons  (Ex.  xx:  22  ;  xxi:  i; 
xxv:  1,2;  xxxi :  1 2,  13;  Lev.  vi :  i ,  2  ;  xi :  i  ;  xiii :  i ; 
Numb,  xxvi :  i,  etc.,  etc.).  From  Deuteronomy  we 
learn  how  Moses  acquitted  himself  of  his  task, 
for  the  ordinances  which  he  there  delivers  to  the 
people  have  been  revealed  to  him  beforehand 
by  Yahwe  (Deut.  v  :  3 1  ;  vi :  i)." 

And  again :  "  On  the  face  of  the  whole  legisla- 
tion, of  course,  we  read  that  the  theatre  is  t/ie  desert ; 
Israel  is  encamped  there ;  the  settlement  in  Canaan 
is  in  the  future.  With  regard  to  the  laws  in  Ex. 
xxv,  sqq. ;  Lev.  i,  sqq. ;  Numb,  iv,  sqq. ;  xix.,  etc., 
this  is  elaborately  shown  to  be  the  case  by  Bleek 
("  Einl.,"  p.  29,  sqq.,  4th  ed.),  but  it  is  also  applicable 
in  the  main  to  Ex.  xxi — xxiii  (see  especially  xxiii : 
20,  sqq}j,  and  to  Deuteronomy.  In  other  words,  it 
is  not  only  the  superscriptions  that  assign  the 
laws  to  Moses,  and  locate  them  in  the  desert, 
but  the  form  of  the  legislation  likewise  accords 
with  this  determination  of  time  and  place.  .  .  . 
The  representation  given  in  the  Hexateuch  of  the 
legislative  activity  of  Moses  involves  the  essential 
unity  of  the  Torn.  .  .  .  There  can  be  no  ques- 
tion, therefore,  that  if  we  place  ourselves  at  the 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  CO 

point  of  view  of  the  Hexateuch  itself,  we  are  jus- 
tified in  regarding  the  ordinances  of  Exodus — 
Deuteronomy  as  the  several  parts  of  a  single  body 
of  legislation,  and  comparing  them  with  one  an- 
other as  such."* 

We  have  cited  thus  fully  the  exact  words  of 
this  critic,  italics  included,  that  there  may  be 
no  possibility  of  misunderstanding  his  position. 
He  does  not  for  a  moment  hesitate  before  the 
alternative,  which  he  himself  puts  as  follows: 
"  Either  the  laws  really  came  from  Moses  and 
the  desert,  or  they  are  merely  put  into  his  mouth, 
and  the  desert  and  so  forth  belong  to  their  literary 
form  of  presentment."  f  Just  as  little  does  he 
hesitate  to  adopt  the  latter  hypothesis  with  all 
that  it  implies  and  demands.  For  this  course  he 
gives  the  following  reasons,  briefly  stated : 

It  is  unlikely,  he  holds,  that  such  a  body  of 
legislation  could  have  originated  in  the  limited 
period  allowed — that  is,  during  the  first  year  after 
the  exodus  and  the  closing  months  of  the  fortieth 
year  of  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness.  Even  if 
such  a  supposition  were  in  itself  admissible,  it  is 
said  to  be  clear  that  it  has  no  basis  in  fact,  since, 
apart  from  their  contents,  these  laws  often  com- 
pletely differ  from  one  another  in  their  form, 
even  where  the  subjects  are  identical.  They 
purport  to  have  been  made  in  the  wilderness 
for  a  nomad  people,  and  yet  have  a  form  adapting 
them  to  a  people  already  settled  in  Canaan. 
Granting  that  Moses  may  have  presupposed  the 
*Kuenen,  *'  The  Hexateuch,"  pp.  7,  18,  30,  24.    \Ihid.,^.  20. 


70  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

transition  from  the  one  state  to  the  other,  it  is 
still  very  strange,  Kuenen  says,  that  he  "should 
have  made  such  an  assumption  tacitly,  and  so 
have  left  this  great  transition  wholly  unregu- 
lated."* 

Moreover,  various  subjects  which,  our  critic 
declares,  belonged  entirely  to  the  future,  are  dealt 
with,  as  he  says,  at  length  and  down  to  the  small- 
est details;  while,  in  strange  contrast  with  this 
minuteness  of  the  legislation  (in  religious  matters), 
stands  its  incompleteness  as  it  respects  the  ''gov- 
ernment of  the  clans,  the  tribes  and  the  whole 
people."  ''  When  we  put  all  this  together,"  remarks 
Kuenen,  "  we  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion  that 
the  character  of  the  legislation  as  a  whole  is  in 
absolute  contradiction  with  the  setting  in  which 
the  Hexateuch  sets  it."f  Added  to  this,  he 
holds  that  each  of  the  several  groups  of  laws  has 
''  its  own  linguistic  character,  and  is  specially 
marked  by  special  fixed  formulae  which  constantly 
recur,  while  their  absence  from  the  other  groups 
must  at  any  rate  seem  strange,  if  we  are  to  assign 
a  common  origin  to  them  all."  J 

So  much,  in  general  terms,  is  asserted  respect- 
ing the  form  of  the  laws.  Of  still  greater  weight 
on  this  side  of  the  discussion,  it  is  alleged,  are 
the  facts  respecting  the  contents.  They  are  said 
not  only  to  reveal  important  differences,  but 
"irreconcilable  contradictions."  "This  is  especi- 
ally true,"  Kuenen  thinks,  "of  Deuteronomy  when 

*  Kuenen,  ♦*  The  Hexateuch,"  pp.  19,  22,  24.  f  ibid,,  p  19. 
ti&id.,  p.  23. 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  71 

compared  with  the  laws  that  stand  between  Exodus 
XXV  and  the  end  of  Numbers,  so  that  even  if  the 
relation  in  which  Deuteronomy  has  been  supposed 
to  stand  to  the  preceding  books  could  be  accept- 
ed as  the  true  one,  it  could  not  in  any  way  bridge 
over  the  kind  of  difference  we  actually  find  be- 
tween them.""^ 

As  examples  of  Pentateuch  laws  answering  to 
this  description,  Kuenen  cites  those  on  the  follow- 
ing eight  themes:  The  place  of  worship ;  the  relig- 
ious festivals;  the  priests  and  Levites;  the  tithes 
of  crops  and  cattle;  the  firstlings  of  cattle;  the 
dwelling-places  of  priests  and  Levites  in  the  land 
of  Canaan;  the  age  at  which  Levites  were  to 
enter  upon  their  duties;  and  the  manumission  of 
Israelitish  slaves.  In  summing  up,  he  says:  ^'With- 
out anticipating  the  sequel  of  our  inquiry,  we  may 
lay  it  down  at  once  that  most  of  the  laws  which 
are  here  brought  under  comparison  answer  to 
wholly  different  wants  and  were  made  in  view  of 
widely  divergent  circumstances,  and  accordingly 
must,  in  all  probability,  be  separated  from  each 
other  by  a  space,  not  of  years,  but  of  centuries."  f 

Such,  in  the  briefest  terms,  is  the  theory  of 
Kuenen  and  (for  substance)  of  his  fellow  critics 
respecting  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  laws,  and 
such  the  line  of  reasoning  by  which  it  is  supported. 
Both  are  based  on  the  assumption  that,  to  a 
certain  extent — and  here  we  are  supposed  to  be 
shut  up  to  the  guidance  of  these  men  to  say  to 
what   extent — the   representations   of   the    Bible 

*  "  The  Hexateuch,"  p.  25.    f  Ibid.,  p.  25. 


73  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

itself  on  the  subject  are  fictitious — a  kind  of  his- 
trionic costume  which  must  be  removed  in  order 
to  reach  the  facts.  The  broad  and  palpable  state- 
ments of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  premises  are 
fully  recognized.  It  is  not  denied  that  the  way 
it  has  of  accounting  for  itself  is  fairly  plausible; 
enough  so,  at  least,  to  command  the  assent  of 
Jews  and  Christians  down  to  recent  times.  It 
is  not  denied,  as  we  understand,  that,  allowing 
the  presence  of  the  supernatural  agencies  described 
in  the  Pentateuch,  it  could  have  originated  in  the 
way  alleged.  But  it  is  denied  that  this  is  the 
most  natural  and  reasonable  way  of  accounting 
for  the  work;  and,  in  fact,  it  can  be  so  accounted 
for  only  by  doing  violence  to  the  documents  of 
which  it  is  composed. 

Now,  it  is  clear  that,  in  this,  as  in  every  other 
discussion,  a  great  deal  depends  on  the  point  of 
view  taken.  What  might  seem  unnatural  and 
unreasonable  to  one  person  might  appear  quite 
natural  and  consistent  to  another  who  occupied  a 
different  point  of  view.  Consequently,  w^e  can- 
not consent  that  the  matter  of  the  possibility  of 
the  superhuman  origin  of  much  of  the  Pentateuch 
literature  shall  be  left  out  of  account  or  become 
obscured.  This  is  a  claim  that  the  Pentateuch 
makes  for  itself.  It  is  made  almost  everywhere 
in  connection  with  the  name  of  Moses.  It  is  only 
fair — ''  scientific,"  indeed — that  as  an  alleged  fact 
it  be  duly  weighed  among  the  other  elements 
that  go  to  make  up  the  final  result.  Holding,  as 
we   ourselves  do,  to  the  superhuman   conception 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  73 

of  Jesus  Christ;  believing  that  He  wrought  the 
wonderful  works  ascribed  to  Him  in  the  Gospel, 
and  that,  after  His  crucifixion,  death  and  burial, 
He  rose  from  the  dead,  we  find  no  necessity  for 
eliminating  homogeneous  supernatural  events  from 
the  preliminary  history.  But  even  with  no  such 
postulate  of  a  superhuman  Christ,  and  a  New 
Testament  history  luminous  with  miracle,  the 
claim  which  the  Pentateuch  makes  for  itself 
should  be  allowed  to  be  a  possible  one  in  any 
candid  discussion  of  the  subject.  And  the  thing 
that  we  have  chiefly  to  consider  is  the  justice  of 
such  a  claim  as  compared  with  any  hypothesis 
offered  in  its  place. 

At  the  outset  of  our  inquiries  concerning  the 
Pentateuch  laws,  then,  we  are  confronted  with 
the  fundamental  question  whether  the  representa- 
tion they  make  that  they  come  '4rom  Moses 
and  the  desert  "  is  probably  genuine  or  belongs 
simply  to  their  *' literary  form  of  presentment," 
as  it  is  alleged.  It  is  certain  that  there  is  nothing 
in  the  substance  of  these  laws  to  encourage  a 
theory  of  deception.  The  moral  plane  on  which 
they  move  is  confessedly  the  highest.  Not  only 
is  supreme  loyalty  to  Jehovah  demanded,  but 
thoroughly  upright  dealing  between  man  and 
man.  Let  there  be  noted,  for  example,  under 
what  strict  rules  judges  and  officers  are  put  in 
the  discharge  of  their  functions  (Deut.  xvi :  1 8-20  ; 
xvii:8-i3);  the  requirement  respecting  those 
testifying  in  criminal  suits  (Deut.  xvii :  6 ;  xix  :  15); 
the    severe    punishment   visited   upon    false   wit- 


74  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

nesses  (Deut.  xix:  15-21),  and  the  strenuous 
insistence  on  the  use  of  correct  weights  and 
measures  in  business  transactions  (Deut.  xxv: 
13-16).  It  is  too  much  to  suppose,  as  the  theory 
of  Kuenen  does,  that  persons  introducing  laws  of 
this  character  would  themselves  flagrantly  sin 
against  them. 

It  might  be  said,  however,  and  is  said,  that  in 
attaching  the  name  of  Moses  to  the  Pentateuch 
laws  there  was  no  fraudulent  intention  whatever. 
It  was  merely  a  device,  openly  adopted,  just  as  the 
Qoheleth  of  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  under  a 
thin  and  easily  penetrable  disguise,  was  represented 
to  be  Solomon,  in  order  to  heighten  the  effect 
of  the  work.  It  is  by  no  means  easy  to  accept 
such  an  explanation  of  the  matter.  It  is  an 
hypothesis  which  surely  verges  on  the  incredible 
to  suppose  that  this  could  have  been  so,  and  no 
vestige  of  the  fact  have  been  discovered  until 
our  day.  Besides,  what  purpose  could  possibly 
have  been  served  in  David's  time  or  Ezra's  time 
by  ascribing  a  law  then,  as  it  is  supposed,  first  re- 
quired by  actual  circumstances,  and  first  promul- 
gated, to  Moses,  who  lived  centuries  before  in 
circumstances  entirely  diverse?  The  theme  of 
the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  and  its  treatment  ac- 
cord, in  the  main,  with  the  noni  de  plume  of  the 
writer.  Solomon  was  a  real  king,  and  there  is  an 
accepted  history  of  his  times  and  of  his  personal 
habits  and  tastes. 

With  Moses  it  is  very  different.  He  lived,  as 
our  critics  allege,  in  a  rough  and  cruel  age.     The 


Pentateuch  Analysis— ^i'he  Codes.  75 

narrative  we  have  of  him  is  largely  mythical. 
Few,  if  any,  laws  really  came  from  his  hand.  No- 
body can  have  known  this  better  than  his  com- 
patriots of  the  later  day.  How  then  could  it 
have  enhanced  in  any  sense  or  degree  the  author- 
ity or  worth  of  a  law  of  theirs  to  put  his  name 
supposititiously  upon  it  ?  What,  for  example, 
should  fit  him,  on  the  basis  of  such  an  estimate 
of  him,  to  be  an  ideal  legislator  for  the  temple  on 
Mount  Moriah,  with  its  complex  and  splendid 
ritual?  The  only  thing  which  would  render  it 
either  consistent  or  in  the  least  probable  that 
later  legislators  would  thus  refer  laws  of  their 
own,  whether  surreptitiously  or  openly,  to  the 
hero  of  the  exodus,  would  be  a  prevalent  under- 
standing and  admission  that  Moses  himself  was 
a  divinely  guided  legislator  and  that,  in  its  gen- 
eral features,  the  Biblical  account  of  him  and  his 
times  is  true.  But  this  is  the  exact  thing  that  is 
called  in  question,  although  in  so  doing  our  critics 
fatally  undermine  their  own  most  fundamental 
position. 

We  have  considered  the  matter  from  the  point 
of  view  of  common  experience  and  common  sense. 
It  appears  just  as  improbable  when  considered 
from  that  of  literary  criticism.  The  composition 
and  arrangement  of  the  Pentateuch  laws  is  such 
that  the  unlikelihood  of  their  origin  in  the  way 
our  critics  fancy  closely  verges  on  the  impossible. 
The  three  codes,  it  is  believed,  reflect  not  only 
three  distinct  and  widely  separated  periods,  but 
almost    every    intervening   period.     They   are    a 


76  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

growth  in  thought,  it  is  said,  which  began  first  to 
take  on  tangible  written  form  about  the  time  of 
the  earher  kings  of  Israel  and  reached  its  present 
completeness  at  the  time  of  the  exile,  or,  as 
Kuenen  maintains,  considerably  later  than  that. 
During  all  this  time  priests  and  prophets,  es- 
pecially the  former,  were  making  new  laws  sup- 
posed to  be  suitable  to  the  exigences  of  their  own 
periods,  and,  in  order  to  give  them  currency,  as- 
cribed them  to  Moses,  or  to  Moses  and  Aaron,  or 
to  Moses  and  Eleazer,  after  the  assumed  death  of 
Aaron.  As  a  part  of  the  illusion,  Moses  is  made 
to  say  that  all  the  commandments,  institutions 
and  judgments  which  he  had  to  teach  to  Israel  he 
received  from  Jehovah,  on  Mount  Horeb,  and  on 
the  "  face  of  the  whole  legislation,  we  read  that 
the  theatre  is  the  desert ;  Israel  is  encamped 
there  ;  the  settlement  of  Canaan  is  in  the  future." 
Can  we  fairly  conceive  of  such  a  process  of  law- 
making as  possible?  It  is  kept  up  for  a  millen- 
nium, the  sons  doing  as  the  fathers  did  in  this  re- 
spect for  thirty  generations.  Every  new  statute 
coming  into  being  is  carefully  and  most  ingeni- 
ously given  the  Mosaic  stamp  and  the  coloring  of 
the  desert.  Or,  if  this  was  not  done  at  the  time 
the  laws  were  made,  it  was  done  subsequently 
through  the  skillful  retouching  of  later  editorial 
hands.  It  might  be  asked.  Why  should  it  have 
been  done  at  all,  if  not  at  first?  If  the  help  of 
Moses*  name  was  needed,  it  was  needed  most 
when  the  laws  were  first  promulgated.  To  attach 
it  to  them  after  they  had  once  come  to  be  known 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  77 

as  the  work  of  contemporaneous  legislators  would 
have  been,  one  might  suppose,  an  occasion  of 
weakening,  more  than  strengthening,  their  au- 
thority. 

But  in  the  one  way  or  the  other  this  most 
anomalous  method  of  legislating  for  a  great  people, 
it  is  afifirmed,  went  on  for  hundreds  of  years.  No- 
body pretends  to  assert  that  there  has  ever  ap- 
peared any  evidence  that  the  people  of  Israel 
themselves  recognized,  as  such,  the  illusion  with 
which  they  beguiled  themselves.  Every  supposed 
legislator — there  must  have  been  scores  of  them — 
keeps  himself  as  carefully  out  of  sight  as  though 
he  had  never  existed.  The  result  of  the  whole  is 
the  Pentateuch,  a  literary  composition  equally  a 
marvel  of  moral  elevation  and  intellectual  strength 
— a  work  that  presents  a  body  of  laws  making  just 
claim  to  be  essentially  a  unit  in  conception  and 
teaching,  and  one  that,  placed  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Bible,  has  left  its  indelible  mark  on  every 
part  of  it.  It  is  admitted  that  there  are  some  se- 
rious difficulties  involved  in  the  common  view  of 
the  origin  and  literary  structure  of  the  Penta- 
teuch ;  there  are  surely  none  that  call  for  such  a 
stretch  of  credulity  as  this. 

But  it  is  pronounced  highly  improbable  that 
such  a  body  of  legislation  could  have  originated 
in  the  limited  period  allowed,  that  is,  during  the 
first  year  after  the  exodus  and  the  closing  months 
of  the  fortieth  year  in  the  wilderness.  Admitting 
the  claim,  however,  that  these  laws  were,  to  a 
large   extent,  supernaturally  given,  there  need  be 


78  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

no  improbability  attaching  to  the  matter.  Even 
without  this  postulate,  their  origin  in  this  limited 
time,  all  things  considered,  is  much  more  credible 
than  the  alternative  hypothesis.  The  Bible  no- 
where states  that  every  specific  law  arose  de  novo 
.at  the  period  of  the  exodus.  It  is  exceedingly 
probable  that  not  a  few  of  those  found  in  the  so- 
called  Book  of  the  Covenant  represent,  either  in 
a  written  or  unwritten  form,  previous  customs  of 
the  people  under  their  elders  and  judges.  Israel 
went  down  into  Egypt  as  a  family  under  its  pa- 
triarchal head.  It  dwelt  in  Goshen  as  a  distinct, 
and  for  a  long  time,  as  it  would  appear,  as  a  quasi 
independent,  people.  It  cannot  have  been  with- 
out laws  of  some  sort  during  this  time.  What- 
ever laws  they  may  have  had  they  doubtless  took 
back  with  them  to  Canaan.  In  principle,  many 
of  them  we  believe  are  found  in  chapters  xxi — 
xxiii  of  Exodus.  The  terse,  laconic  form  in  which 
they  appear  is  entirely  in  harmony  with  this  sup- 
position ;  and  there  is  documentary  confirmation 
of  it.  Before  the  giving  of  the  law  on  Sinai 
Moses  is  represented  as  saying  to  Jethro,  his 
father-in-law:  ''The  people  come  unto  me  to  in- 
quire of  God  .  .  .  and  judge  between  a  man 
and  his  neighbor,  and  I  make  them  know  the 
statutes  of  God,  and  his  laws."  * 

Apart  from  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  there  is 
the  legislation  respecting  the  tabernacle  and  its 
worship  contained  in  Exodus — Numbers  and  the 
code  cf  Deuteronomy,     A  remarkable  misappre- 

*  Ex.  xviii :  16  ;  cf.  vs.  30 ;  Deut.  iv  :  5. 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  79 

hension  seems  to  exist  as  to  the  amount  of  matter 
contained  in  these  codes.  Possibly  the  mistake 
arose  from  a  sense  of  their  unexampled  influence 
upon  the  institutions  of  the  civilized  world.  In 
this  respect  the  Decalogue,  which  might  be 
written  on  a  five-cent  piece,  is  a  tremendous  code. 
But,  deep  and  wide  as  has  been  their  effect,  the 
actual  words  of  the  Pentateuch  laws  are  compara- 
tively few.  The  first  code  covers  about  five  pages, 
or  a  space  of  twenty  by  seven  inches,  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible.  The  laws  of  Deuteronomy,  we  are  told, 
were  inscribed  on  plastered  stones  after  reaching 
Canaan.  Had  the  character  in  which  they  were 
written  been  enlarged  to  five  times  their  size  as 
they  now  appear  in  the  Hebrew,  they  could  all 
have  been  written  on  a  space  eight  feet  by  three 
and  would  then  have  required  less  room  by  one- 
half  than  was  alloted  to  the  famous  Behistun  in- 
scription of  the  Persian  Darius.*'"^"  Compare  the 
amount  of  new  or  revised  legislation  called  for  in 
one  of  the  United  States  in  a  single  year  with 
that  of  the  whole  Israelitish  nation  in  a  peculiar 
period  of  its  history  and  during  the  space  of  forty 
years.  Compare  further  with  the  same  the 
changes  that  are  often  thought  necessary  in  laws, 
made  one  year,  by  a  legislature  meeting  the  next 
or  the  second  year  after,  under  circumstances,  to 
all  appearance,  quite  similar,  and  one  will  be  sur- 
prised  not  only  at  the  condensed  form  but  the 

*  According  to  Bertheau,  the  laws  of  Exodus — Numbers 
contain  four  hundred  and  ninety  precepts.  See  "Die 
Sieben  Gruppen  Mosaischer  Gestze  "  {2)a8sim). 


80  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

wonderful  unity  and  consistency  of  the  lav/s  of 
the  Pentateuch. 

It  is  said,  however,  that,  as  God-given,  the  same 
subject  being  under  consideration,  there  should 
have  been  no  change ;  no  Deuteronomy,  for  ex- 
ample, following  so  soon  the  Book  of  the  Cov- 
enant and  the  code  of  Exodus — Numbers.  Such  a 
statement  betrays  a  serious  misunderstanding  not 
only  of  what  might  be  expected  to  be,  but  of  what 
actually  is  the  uniform  method  of  the  Bible.  It 
adapts  itself  to  the  circumstances  of  men.  Its 
declared  aim  is  to  be  a  stimulus,  and  not  a  dis- 
couragement. It  was  meant  to  have  an  educating 
influence  as  well  as  to  offer  a  goal  and  standard 
of  ultimate  appeal.  Had  it  not  been  so,  there 
would  have  been  no  need  of  any  Old  Testament 
at  all.  The  fully  developed  teachings  of  Christ 
and  His  apostles  would  have  been  given  at  once 
at  the  beginning  of  human  history.  As  it  is,  we 
find  many  precepts  and  injunctions  touching  mat- 
ters civil,  social  and  ecclesiastical  which  again  and 
again  change  their  form  as  the  needs  of  the  peo- 
ple for  whom  they  are  designed  are  changed. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  they  should  change, 
even  within  the  limits  of  a  few  months,  when  we 
consider  the  mighty  crisis  through  which  the 
children  of  Israel  were  passing  at  the  time  when 
the  laws  purport  to  have  been  given  ;  much  less 
that  the  trying  forty  years  of  the  wilderness  so- 
journ should  make  more  radical  alterations  neces- 
sary. Meanwhile,  it  is  to  be  carefully  noticed 
that  there  is  also  something  unchanging  in  them; 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  81 

the  ethical  and  spiritual  element.  The  demand 
for  supreme  loyalty  to  Jehovah,  for  example,  is 
made  upon  the  ancient  Hebrew  in  form  and  de- 
gree just  as  it  is  upon  the  modern  Christian.  An 
inflexible  standard  in  certain  things,  combined 
with  development  and  change  in  others  that  con- 
cern not  the  essence  but  the  form,  is  in  perfect 
harmony  with  the  theory  that  the  Bible  is  a  su- 
pernatural revelation  ;  it  is  an  inexplicable  prob- 
lem to  him  who  would  explain  it  solely  on  the 
hypothesis  of  a  natural  development. 

Moreover,  looking  at  the  several  Pentateuch 
codes  as  distinct  collections,  there  was  good  and 
sufficient  reason  for  the  origin  of  each  of  them  in 
the  Mosiac  period.  How  the  first  may  have 
arisen  has  been  already  shown.  The  laws  center- 
ing in  the  sanctuary,  with  its  sacrifices  and  minis- 
try, had  a  no  less  direct  historic  occasion.  When 
the  people  of  Israel  left  Egypt,  and  for  some  time 
afterwards,  there  appeared  no  sign  of  a  Levitical 
priesthood.  It  looked  as  though  Jehovah  in- 
tended to  take  as  his  priests  the  first-born  of 
every  family.  By  sparing  them  in  Egypt  he  had 
made  good  his  claim  upon  them.  This  seems,  in 
fact,  to  be  implied  in  the  words  addressed  to 
Moses  just  before  ihe  giving  of  the  Sinaitic  law  : 
"Ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of  priests  and  an 
holy  nation."  * 

Such  a  high  calling,  however,  was  contingent 
on  Israel's  obeying  in  the  matter  of  the  covenant. 
The  subsequent  sin  with  the  golden  calf  was  of 

*  Exodus  xix  :  6. 


8a  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

the  nature  of  a  revolution.  It  radically  changed 
the  status  of  Israel.  The  covenant  had  been  lit- 
erally broken,  as  it  was  symbolically  when  Moses 
dashed  in  pieces  the  tables  of  stone.  A  change  of 
administration  was  therefore  found  to  be  wise. 
That  it  had  been  foreseen  and  provided  for  does 
not  alter  the  facts.  It  consisted  in  designating 
the  whole  tribe  of  Levi  for  service  at  the  sanc- 
tuary in  place  of  the  first-born  of  each  family. 
Why  this  tribe  in  preference  to  another  was 
chosen  the  history  gives  us  distinct  intimation.* 
And  how  definitely  the  idea  of  substitution  ruled 
throughout — one  tribe  being  accepted  for  all  the 
first-born — appears  in  the  fact  that  the  exchange 
was  made  in  detail,  man  for  man,  by  actual  count. 
As  far  as  one  tribe  failed  to  cover  the  whole 
number  of  first-born  it  was  made  good  by  a  con- 
tribution of  money  to  the  sanctuary.f  Previous 
to  the  worship  of  the  golden  calf,  the  builds 
ing  of  the  tabernacle  and  the  consecration  of 
Aaron  and  his  sons  had  been  enjoined.  Subse- 
quent to  it,  the  setting  apart  of  the  rest  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi  for  service  at  the  sanctuary  was  le- 
galized, and  all  the  laws  respecting  worship,  the 
maintenance  of  priests  and  Levites,  and  the  like, 
were  promulgated. 

For  details  our  limits  allow  no  space.  But  it 
cannot  be  disputed  that  there  was  a  highly  fitting 
occasion  in  the  exodus  period  for  such  a  collec- 
tion of  laws  as  the  one  found  in  the  middle  books 
of  the  Pentateuch.     To   take  them  out  of  their 

*  Exodus  xxxii  :  26.     f  Numbers  iii :  46-48. 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  83 

present  historical  setting,  in  which  along  with  the 
narrative  of  the  national  revolt  at  Sinai  and  its 
alleged  results  are  interwoven  such  incidents  as 
that  of  the  free-will  offerings  of  the  people  for  the 
tabernacle,  the  rebellion  of  Nadab  and  Abihu,  the 
leprosy  of  Miriam,  the  diary  of  the  journeyings  of 
the  camp  from  place  to  place,  and  scores  of  others, 
for  any  such  reason  as  our  critics  give,  appears  to 
us  rash  and  unjustifiable  in  the  extreme.  ^ 

The  occasion  for  the  Deuteronomic  code  as  a 
product  of  this  period  is  perhaps  clearest  of  all. 
The  representation  is  that  the  addresses  in  which 
it  is  included  were  spoken  by  Moses  in  the  fields 
of  Moab  just  before  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan. 
The  introductory  address  is  a  brief  review  of  the 
experiences  of  the  preceding  forty  years  in  the 

*  Kuenen  seems  to  think  the  journalistic  and  chronolog-ical 
arrangement  of  the  Jaws  a  suspicious  circumstance  ("  The 
Hexateuch,"  pp.  6-9).  On  the  contrary,  there  could  hardly 
have  been  a  more  significant  mark  of  genuineness.  If  they 
arose  as  he  holds,  they  would  almost  certainly  have  been 
more  sj'^stematically  arranged,  those  having  no  special  de- 
pendence on  Moses  or  his  times  being  relegated  to  tliat 
period  of  thirty-eight  years  in  the  wilderness  of  which  we 
■  know  so  little.  This,  at  least,  is  the  method  adopted  by 
our  critics.  They  do  not  venture  to  invent  a  historj'  to 
suit  the  laws  which  they  take  out  of  their  setting  in  the 
Pentateuch,  but  assign  them  dubiously  to  the  exile  or 
some  other  period  of  which  we  have  no  information  that 
is  pertinent.  In  the  Pentateuch  the  only  legislation  as- 
signed to  the  wliole  thirty-eight  years  of  wandering  are 
the  miscellaneous  laws  found  in  Numbers  xv,  xviii,  xix. 
Sporadic  laws  are  everywhere  connected  with  sporadic 
events,  while  the  more  important  and  numerous  rest 
solidly  on  a  basis  of  continuous  history. 


84  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

wilderness.  The  code  itself  has  a  hortatory, 
popular  form,  precisely  such  as  the  alleged  circum- 
stances might  lead  us  to  expect.  It  is  especially 
noticeable  in  three  particulars :  It  does  not  refer 
in  detail  to  the  body  of  priestly  legislation  found 
in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  only 
cursorily,  though  sometimes  directly,  to  some 
parts  of  it.*  It  has  laws  peculiar  to  itself,  and,  as 
can  easily  be  shown,  they  are  such  as  grow  out  of 
the  altered  circumstances  of  the  people.  It  re- 
peats, enlarges,  or  otherwise  modifies,  as  oc- 
casion seems  to  demand,  the  succinct  precepts  of 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Exodus  xx :  23 — xxiii). 
Kuenen  denies  that  the  code  of  Deuteronomy 
takes  cognizance  of  any  antecedent  one ;  but  in 
doing  so  he  takes  issue  with  nearly  all  of  his  asso- 
ciates, Wellhausen  included,  and  is  certainly  in 
error. 

Now,  in  the  very  statement  of  these  facts,  suffi- 
cient ground  for  the  existence  of  the  third  code  is 
apparent.  The  others  needed  to  be  supplemented 
and  modified  in  certain  particulars  by  this,  in 
order  to  fit  them  for  a  people  like  Israel  at  this 
Juncture.  It  is  not  sufficiently  to  the  point, 
though  in  general  quite  true,  for  Kuenen  to  say 
that,  inasmuch  as  the  laws  contained  in  Exodus — 
Numbers  were  themselves  shaped  for  a  settled 
people,  cultivating  the  soil,  there  should  have  been 
no  demand  ior  a?iy  modification  of  them  on  enter- 
ing Canaan.     It  is  literally  true  of  the  greater  part 

*For  examples  See  Dillmann  ("Com.,"  Leipz.,  1886),  p. 
605. 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  85 

of  the  Levitical  priestly  legislation  of  the  middle 
books.  It  required  and  received  no  modification. 
There  were  other  laws  that  were  repeated,  it 
would  seem,  for  the  mere  sake  of  repetition  and 
emphasis,  as  in  the  case  of  that  concerning  the  de- 
struction of  idols,  the  worship  of  Moloch,  food  as 
clean  and  unclean,  mourning  customs  and  the  like  ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  there  were  some  laws 
which,  on  the  ground  of  altered  circumstances  or 
new  experience,  actually  needed,  as  they  appeared, 
to  be  revised  to  some  extent.  As  it  respects  such 
laws,  it  would  be  disingenuous  to  afifirm  that  in 
their  original  form  they  assume  to  be  final,  or  so 
to  cover  the  future  with  their  claim  as  to  admit 
of  no  alteration.* 

But  is  not  the  very  fact  that  so  many  of  these 
laws  are  in  form  adapted  to  the  settled  life  of 
Palestine,  though  purporting  to  be  made  in  the 
wilderness,  evidence  in  itself  of  their  origin  long 
after  the  time  of  Moses?  So  it  is  thought  by 
Kuenen.  If  it  had  been  Moses,  he  thinks,  who 
made  the  laws,  he  would  not  have  made  so  little 
of  the  transition  from  the  wilderness  to  Canaan, 
recognizing  it  only  ''  tacitly,"  and  leaving  it  alto- 
gether ''  unregulated."  The  Pentateuch  laws, 
however,  were  not  made  with  sole  and  exclusive 
reference  to  the  land  of  Canaan,  not  even  the  Le- 
vitical code.  The  camp,  with  the  tabernacle  as 
its  nucleus,  is  everywhere  recognized  as  the  central 
feature  of  the  national  life. 

*Fora  list  of  passages  see  p.  205  of  "  The  Pentateuch  ; 
Its  Orig-in  and  Structure,"  etc. 


86  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Moreover,  the  code  of  Deuteronomy — especially 
the  laws  peculiar  to  it  and  those  modified  in  it — 
is  a  tangible  disproof  of  the  intimation  that  Moses 
recognized  but  tacitly  the  transition  from  the  wil- 
derness to  Canaan,  and  left  it  unregulated.  A 
principal  object  of  the  book  was  just  this :  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  the  transition.  And  it  is  only 
on  the  basis  of  his  theory  of  the  origin  of  Deuter- 
onomy, that  is,  by  reasoning  in  a  circle,  that  Kue- 
nen  can  make  out  the  contrary,  and  not  even  thus. 
The  entire  Pentateuch  history,  from  the  beginning 
of  the  life  of  Abraham  to  the  crossing  of  the  Jor- 
dan, is  marked,  as  by  almost  nothing  else,  by  a 
steady  outlook  towards  Canaan.  It  is  for  this 
reason  that  the  prolonged  Egyptian  sojourn  of  the 
whole  people  is  given  less  space  in  it  than  is  as- 
signed to  the  life  of  Joseph.  It  is  fully  admitted 
that  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  w^ere  largely 
made  for  an  agricultural  people.  But  it  is  a  fact 
that  has  other  bearings  than  those  to  which  Kue- 
nen  calls  attention.  It  harmonizes  perfectly  and 
most  significantly  with  the  Biblical  statement  of 
their  origin  and  purpose. 

Supposing,  then,  that  the  Pentateuch  codes 
arose  in  this  manner — that  is,  as  described  in  detail 
in  the  Bible — there  is  nothing  surprising  in  the 
fact  that  each  has  a  peculiar  linguistic  character, 
and  is  marked  by  fixed /(?r;;/?//(^  not  found  in  the 
other  groups,  though  too  much  may  easily  be 
made  of  this  fact.  Comparing  the  code  of  Deuter- 
onomy with  that  of  the  middle  books,  for  exam- 
ple, there   are    no  differences  of   this   sort    that 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  87 

cannot  be  readily  explained  on  the  ground  of  the 
changed  point  of  view  of  the  legislator  or  other 
natural  circumstances.  The  one  is  priestly  legis- 
lation, the  other  is  popular.  The  one  is  at  the 
beginning  of  forty  years  of  wandering,  the  other 
at  its  close.  The  one  has  immediately — though 
not  ultimately — before  it  life  in  camp,  the  other 
hfe  in  Palestine.  That  Moses  actually  penned 
the  whole  Pentateuch  no  one  holds.  Under  his 
general  direction  a  number  of  hands  may  have 
been,  and  in  all  probability  were,  employed  upon 
it.  Accordingly,  we  find  ourselves  under  no  ne- 
cessity for  harmonizing  the  style  of  the  several 
parts,  so  that,  for  instance,  the  same  name  of  God 
shall  be  everywhere  used,  the  same  method  of 
designating  the  months,  the  same  expression  for 
capital  punishment,  and  the  like.  Scarcely  an 
instance  is  cited  by  Kuenen  as  showing  diversity 
of  style  that  has  not  its  exception."^  Setting 
these  aside,  diversity  of  style  in  one  and  the  same 
writer  at  different  times  and  on  different  themes 
is  too  well  recognized  to  be  accepted  as  a  decisive 
mark  of  diverse  authorship  in  documents  whose 
origin  is  in  dispute. 

But  it  is  said  that,  on  the  supposition  of  their 
common  origin,  there  is  found  in  the  Pentateuch 
codes  a  disproportionate  development  of  laws  re. 
lating  to  the  cultus,  as  compared  with  those  relat- 
ing to  civil  matters.  This  would  show,  it  is 
thought,  a  much  longer  period  of  development  in 
the  one  than  in  the  other.     Did  such  a  dispanty 

*  ''  The  Hexateuch,"  p.  23. 


88  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

actually  exist,  it  must  be  conceded  by  all  that  had 
the  laws  relating  to  the  cultus  been  faithfully 
executed  there  would  have  been  little  difficulty 
in  other  matters.  A  fortioi'i  the  one  were  in- 
cluded in  the  other.  In  ideal  the  government 
was  a  theocracy.  And  just  as  the  second  table 
of  the  Decalogue  depends  for  its  proper  fulfill- 
ment on  the  true  spiritual  apprehension  of  the 
first,  and  obedience  to  it,  so  the  Israelitish  laws 
for  the  cultus  had  an  immediate  and  most  direct 
bearing  on  each  man's  duty  as  a  neighbor  and  a 
citizen. 

But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  was  no  such  lack 
of  development  in  the  social  and  civil  institutions 
of  Israel  in  the  early  period  as  is  presupposed. 
Two  of  the  three  codes  relate  almost  exclusively 
to  such  things.  If  there  is  less  of  detail  in  them 
than  in  the  Levitical  laws,  it  is  simply  because 
there  was  no  need  of  detail.  There  is  certainly 
no  lack  of  general  principles;  and  there  is  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  examples  under  them  to  make 
their  application  plain.  Abundant  provision,  for 
example,  is  made  for  righting  all  cases  of  alleged 
wrong,  even  to  an  appeal  from  a  lower  to  a  higher 
court ;  for  the  organization  of  the  army  and  meth- 
ods of  conducting  war;  so,  too,  for  a  revenue  by 
which  the  public  institutions  might  be  supported. 
The  establishment  of  the  kingdom  is  also  fore- 
shadowed, and  laws  for  it  are  conditionally  given. ^ 
These  laws  do  not  in  any  respect  fall  below  the 


*  Deut.  xvii :  8-13,  14-20  ;  xx  :  1-9 ;  xxiv  :  5. 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  89 

standard  of  the  others,  but  are  in  complete  har- 
mony with  them. 

Such  now  are  the  alleged  differences  of  the  Penta- 
teuch codes  as  it  respects  their  historic  background. 
It  will  readily  appear  that  the  supposed  want  of 
agreement  is  apparent  rather  than  real.  So  far  is 
our  examination  from  justifying  the  conclusion 
that  the  Pentateuch  legislation  is  in  "absolute 
contradiction  with  the  setting  in  which  the  Hexa- 
teuch  sets  it,"  that  we  find  it  to  be  its  most  natural 
setting.  Any  other  that  is  suggested  bears  no 
comparison  with  it,  to  say  nothing  of  the  imminent 
danger,  in  sacrificing  the  history  to  save  the  laws, 
that  we  may  give  a  fatal  blow  to  both. 

But,  in  addition  to  their  form,  the  contents  of 
the  Pentateuch  codes  are  cited  in  evidence  that 
they  originated  in  different  periods.  There  are 
eight  particulars  especially  adduced,  in  which 
they  are  said  to  show  not  only  important  discrep- 
ancies but  "  irreconcilable  contradictions."  The 
space  allowed  us  permits  simply  the  barest  notice 
of  the  several  points. 

The  first  relates  to  the  place  where  Israel  was 
to  worship.*  The  assumption  is  that  in  the  ear- 
liest code  worship  at  a  plurality  of  altars  is  per- 
mitted, that  throughout  the  code  of  Deuteronomy 
such  a  practice  is  strictly  prohibited,  while  in  that 
of  Leviticus  centralization  of  worship  is  taken  for 
granted  as  a  thing  of  the  past.  On  this  assump- 
tion it  is  inferred  that  the  three  codes  represent 

*  With  Ex.  XX  :  24  cf .  Deut.  xii  and  Lev.  xvii,  together 
with  parallel  passage. 


90  Pextateuchal  Criticism. 

three  different  phases  and  periods  of  legislation. 
This  inference  would  be  just  if  the  assumption 
were  correct.  It  is  far  enough  from  being  so,  ex- 
cept as  it  relates  to  Deuteronomy.  Neither  the 
law,  Ex.  XX :  24,  nor  any  other  in  the  Pentateuch, 
permits  or  countenances  worship  at  a  plurality  of 
altars.  The  demand  everywhere,  though  from  the 
nature  of  the  case  with  unequal  emphasis,  is  for 
worship  at  one  altar  and  one  altar  only.  That  the 
practice  of  Israel  did  not  always  conform  to  this 
law  is  freely  conceded.  The  national  history  is 
a  record  of  transgression  in  this  respect.  But  that 
there  is  any  conflict  wdiatever  in  the  precepts  of 
the  Pentateuch  codes  on  the  subject,  or  that  there 
has  been  any  valid  evidence  of  it  shown,  is  em- 
phatically denied.*  There  is  an  equal  absence  of 
proof  that  the  code  of  the  middle  books  presup- 
poses worship  at  one  altar  as  a  thing  of  the  past. 
If  there  be  any  climax  in  them  when  compared 
together  in  this  respect,  it  is  found  in  Deuter- 
onomy. The  historical  fact  of  the  rebellion  of 
Korah,  and  the  demand  that  every  sacrifice  should 
be  brought  to  the  ''tent  of  meeting"  if  one  would 
remain  a  member  of  the  Israelitish  common- 
wealth, show  that  the  matter  of  centralizing  the 
worship  was  then  in  progress,  and  by  no  means  a 
thing  of  the  past.f 

The   second   point   of   supposed    contradiction 
relates  to  the  religious  festivals  of  Israel.;}:     It  is 

*  For  a  fuller  treatment  of  the  entire  subject,  the  reader 
is  referred  to  ''The  Pentateucli,"  etc.,  pp.  85-247. 
t  Lev.  xvii :  8,  9 ;  Numb,  xvi :  8-11. 
X  With  Ex.  xxui :  14-17  cf.  Lev.  xxiii,  Deut.  xvi :  1-17. 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  91 

held  that  while  the  first  and  third  codes  agree  in 
recognizing  three  yearly  occasions  of  this  sort,  the 
other,  that  of  the  middle  books,  represents  the 
festivals  as  seven  in  number.  This,  it  is  thought, 
is  evidence  that  the  latter  is  the  product  of  a 
much  longer  development.  It  is  said  that  the 
absolute  silence  of  two  of  the  codes  concerning 
the  other  four  festivals,  "  and  also — which  is  far 
more  significant — concerning  the  day  of  atone- 
ment (cf.  Lev.  xvi),  remains  highly  remarkable, 
and,  indeed,  on  the  supposition  that  the  solemni- 
ties in  question  were  known  to  the  authors,  inex- 
plicable."* 

On  the  contrary,  there  is  nothing  at  all  remarka- 
ble about  it,  much  less  inexplicable.  The  thing 
that  is  inexplicable  is  how  this  critic  is  able  to 
assume  that  each  of  the  codes  must  call  up  anew 
every  law  found  in  the  others,  supposing  all  to 
have  originated  in  the  same  period,  or  be  open  to 
the  charge  of  ignorance  concerning  them.  It  is 
an  assumption  on  which  he  himself  elsewhere 
promptly  turns  his  back.  For  he  admits  that 
though  the  code,  Ex.  xx:  23 — xxiii,  v/as  in  exist- 
ence when  that  of  Deuteronomy  was  written,  the 
latter  makes  no  reference  to  it  or  account  of  it.f 
The  three  codes  are  acknowledged  to  have  each  a 
different  scope.  Tv/o  of  them  are  popular,  while 
one  of  them  is  priestly.  All  of  them  mention  the 
three  pilgrimage  feasts — that  is,  those  which  all 
male  Israelites  were  required  to  attend.  The  two 
that  do  not  definitely  call  attention  to  the  day  of 

*Kuenen,  "  The  Hexateuch,"  p.  37.     f  Ibid.,  p.  34. 


92  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

atonement  in  the  coloring  of  their  thought  look 
towards  it,  and  are  in  harmony  with  it.  And  this 
is  all  that  could  have  been  expected.  To  de- 
mand more  is  to  demand  what  is  unreasonable, 
and  what  there  is  no  analogy  of  Scripture  to  justify. 
The  third  point  of  supposed  contradiction 
among  the  several  collections  of  laws  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch concerns  the  priests  and  Levites.*  While 
in  one  group  (Ex. — Numb.)  Aaron  and  his  sons 
are  recognized  as  the  only  lawful  priests,  the  Le- 
vites  being  set  apart  for  other  and  subordinate 
service,  in  Deuteronomy,  it  is  alleged,  it  is  quite 
otherwise.  There,  as  it  is  claimed,  priestly  duties 
and  prerogatives  are  assigned  to  the  whole  tribe 
of  Levi ;  the  priests  are  called  "  Levitical  priests — ' 
never  "  sons  of  Aaron ; "  and,  in  general,  the  dis- 
tinction between  priests  and  Levites  wholly  dis- 
appears, f  It  is  admitted  that  in  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy  the  functions  of  priests  who  formed 
a  part  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  are  sometimes,  in  a 
general  way,  ascribed  to  the  tribe  itself.  It  is 
admitted  that,  for  some  reason,  most  probably  for 
tribal  reasons — that  is,  to  guard  against  the  spirit 
of  tribal  jealousy  likely  to  arise  at  this  crisis  when  a 
new  country  was  to  be  possessed  and  divided — 
the  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites  in  this 
book  is  reduced  to  a  minimum.  But  it  is  a  seri- 
ous mistake  to  say  that  the  distinction  is  effaced. 
In  the  very  passage  cited  by  Kuenen  as  showing 
it,   important   differences   are  clearly  indicated.:]: 

*  With  Ex.  xxviii,  cf.  Numb,  iii,  Deut.  xviii :  1-8,  and 
parallel  passages. 

f  Kuenen,  ibid.,  pp.  27,  28.     J  Deut.  xviii :  1-8. 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  93 

This  is  done  in  the  first  verse,  where,  after  the 
expression  the  *' priests,  the  Levites"  (margin  of 
the  revised  version,  '' priests  and  the  Levites"), 
is  added  **the  whole  tribe  of  Levi."  Such  an 
addition  would  not  have  been  expected  if  the 
book  recognizes  no  distinction  between  the  two 
classes. 

That,  moreover,  such  distinction  was  actually 
designed  here  is  proven  by  the  context.  In 
verses  3-5,  where  the  maintenance  of  the  priests 
is  under  consideration,  they  are  spoken  of  apart 
from  their  tribal  brethren,  the  Levites.  Subse- 
quently (verses  6-8)  the  case  is  exactly  reversed, 
the  Levites  being  spoken  of  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  priests.  A  notable  omission  appears  in 
Kuenen's  work  in  what  purports  to  be  a  citation 
of  this  passage.  It  is  quoted  as  follows:  "If  the 
Levite  {z.  e.,  any  Levite  whatever)  come  out  of 
one  of  your  cities  in  all  Israel  where  he  sojourns 
as  a  stranger,  and  with  undivided  desire  [the  He- 
brew is  given]  betakes  himself  to  the  place  wdiich 
Jahwe  shall  choose,  then  he  shall  serve  in  the 
name  of  Jahwe,  his  God,  like  all  his  brothers 
[Kuenen  omits  here  the  key  words,  "the  Le- 
vites"] who  stand  there  before  the  face  of  Jah- 
we."* It  will  be  noted  that  the  text  does  not 
say  "like  all  his  brothers,"  nor  "like  all  his 
brothers,  the  priests,"  nor  "like  all  his  brothers, 
the  priests,  the  Levites,"  but  "like  all  his  broth- 
ers, the  Levites."     The  passage,  accordingly,  so 

*  **  The  Hexateuch,"  p.  28. 


94  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

far  from  helping  the  hypothesis  of  Kuenen,  when 
correctly  quoted,  offers  a  fatal  objection  to  it. 

The  next  point  adduced  as  showing  conflicting 
statements  in  the  Pentateuch  codes  relates  to  the 
tithes  of  crops  and  cattle.*  According  to  the 
middle  group  of  laws,  these  ("all  the  tithes")  are 
to  be  given  to  the  Levites,  Avho,  in  their  turn,  sur- 
render a  tenth  to  the  priests.  According  to  Deut- 
eronomy, it  is  said,  the  vegetable  tithes,  on  the 
contrary,  are  set  apart  for  sacrificial  meals  at  the 
sanctuary.  To  these  meals  Levites,  together  with 
widows  and  orphans,  are  simply  invited  as  guests.f 
True  ;  but  in  Deuteronomy  a  second  tithe  is  meant 
in  addition  to  the  first;  and  on  the  supposition 
that  Deuteronomy  contains  supplementary  legis- 
lation it  is  perfectly  in  order.  So  the  Jews  have 
invariably  understood  the  matter.  Such  was  their 
understanding  and  practice  when  the  book  of 
Tobit  was  written,  and  in  the  time  of  our  Lord.;]: 
Kuenen  admits  this  understanding  and  practice 
of  the  Jews,  but  says  that  they  were  mistaken, 
and  that  their  mistake  arose  from  taking  ''the 
Tora  as  a  single  whole."  §  This  is  certainly  a 
strange  admission.  The  Jews,  from  the  time  of 
Moses  or  thereabouts,  taxing  themselves  ten  per 
cent,  more  than  they  needed  to  do,  simply  because 
they  misunderstood  the  bearing  and  requirements 
of  their  own  laws!  They  have  always  under- 
stood that  the  law  in  Deuteronomy  was  meant  to 

*  With  Lev.  xxvii  :  33-34.  cf.  Numb,  xviii :  21-33,  Deut. 
xiv:  23-29.  ■  f  Kuenen,  "The  Hexateuch,"  pp.  28.  29. 
X  Tobit  i  :  7  ;  Josephus,  "  Antiq.,"  iv  :  8,  8.  §  '*  The  Hex- 
ateuch," p.  29. 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  95 

be  supplementary  to  that  of  Leviticus  and  Num- 
bers, when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  contradicts  and 
neutraHzes  it !  The  statement  of  such  an  hypothe- 
sis is  its  own  refutation. 

The  fifth  particular  in  which  the  Pentateuch 
codes  are  supposed  to  antagonize  one  another 
relates  to  the  firstlings  of  the  cattle.*  In  the  first 
two  groups  of  laws  they  are  assigned  either  to 
Jehovah  or  to  his  priests;  in  the  third,  that  is,  in 
Deuteronomy,  they  are  devoted  to  popular  sacri- 
ficial feasts  at  the  sanctuary.  There  need  be  no 
suspicion  of  discrepancy  here,  any  more  than  in 
the  previous  cases  noted,  unless  it  be  assumed 
that  these  ancient  laws  appear  in  cxtenso,  and  that 
all  their  relations  to  one  another  were  meant  to  be 
so  recorded  as  to  be  perfectly  clear  to  posterity  as 
well  as  to  those  for  whom  they  were  immediately 
intended.  Kuenen  sees  no  conflict  in  the  state- 
ment that  in  one  set  of  passages  the  firstlings  are 
demanded  for  Jehovah,  and  in  another  for  Aaron 
and  his  sons.f  He  ought  to  find  just  as  little  in 
the  representation  of  the  people's  code,  as  over 
against  that  of  the  priests,  that  the  same  firstlings 
assigned  to  Jehovah's  priests  for  sacrifice  and,  in 
part,  for  food,  are  also  spoken  of  as  the  sacrifices 
of  Jehovah's  people  and,  in  part,  their  food.  The 
point  of  connection,  notwithstanding  Kuenen's 
scornful  denial,  is  probably  found  in  the  statement 
that  the  flesh  of  these  sacrifices  not  brought  upon 
the   altar  was   to   be  the   priest's,   "as  the  wave 

*With  Ex.  xiii:  12-13,  xxii :  30,  xxxiv:  19,30,  Numb, 
xviii :  15-18,  cf.  Deut.  xv  :  19-'23.    f"  The  Hexateuch,*'  p.  30. 


96  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

breast  and  as  the  right  thigh  "  was  theirs.*  It 
was  theirs,  not  to  do  as  they  pleased  with  it,  but 
under  the  conditions  of  a  cojmnon  sacred  meal.  In 
this  meal  the  owner,  it  would  seem,  and  his  family 
were  to  share  with  the  priest  according  to  the 
latter's  generosity.  Nothing  is  taken  back  in 
Deuteronomy  which  is  conceded  in  Numbers ;  only 
a  limitation  appears  later  which,  as  we  may  sup- 
pose, was  all  the  while  tacitly  understood. 

Another  alleged  discreprancy  in  the  statement 
of  the  Pentateuch  codes  respects  the  dwelling 
places  of  priests  and  Levites.f  It  is  thought  to 
be  inconsistent  with  the  representation  of  Num- 
bers that  in  the  final  partition  of  the  land  forty- 
eight  cities  with  their  suburbs  were  to  be  assigned 
to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  that  Deuteronomy  so  often 
speaks  of  the  members  of  this  tribe  as  though 
they  were  sojourners  in  other  cities,  and  that  they 
are  frequently  classed  with  widows,  orphans  and 
strangers,  as  though  dependent  on  the  generosity 
of  their  brethren  of  the  other  tribes.  It  should  be 
remembered,  however,  that  the  first  code,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  simply  sets  a  standard — gives 
the  principle  and  norm  of  action.  It  would  be 
wrong  to  suppose  that  it  looked  forward  to  an  im- 
mediate and  actual  endowment  of  the  tribe  of 
Levi  to  this  extent.  The  Levites  not  only  were 
never  the  sole  occupants  and  possessors  of  the 
cities  finally  assigned  them  (see  Lev.  xxv :  32), 
but    it   is  clear  that   for  a  long  time   they  were 

*  Numb,  xviii :  18.  f  See  Numb,  xxxv  :  1-8  ;  Deut.  xviii: 
6 ;  Josh,  xxi :  1-42.     Cf.  1  Chronicles  vi :  54-81. 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  97 

unable  to  occupy  them  at  all.  *  It  is  equally  a 
mistake  to  suppose  that  the  prospective  or  ac- 
tual gift  of  these  cities  confined  the  Levites  en- 
tirely to  them,  either  at  the  beginning  or  at  any 
other  time.  Their  chief  business  was  at  the  sanc- 
tuary ;  but  they  had  other  occupations,  as  teach- 
ers, as  assistants  in  the  local  courts,  and  the  like. 
This  would  call  them  to  a  partially  wandering  life, 
especially  as  compared  with  the  other  tribes  with 
their  compact  organization  and  fixed  boundaries. 
There  is  no  impropriety,  therefore,  in  the  language 
used  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  On  the  other 
hand,  how  much  out  of  place  the  legislation  of  the 
book  of  Numbers  would  be  as  having  its  origin  at 
the  time  of  the  exile  can  be  seen  at  a  glance.  At 
that  time  the  priests  greatly  outnumbered  the  Le- 
vites, while  in  the  apportionment  of  the  cities  only 
thirteen  of  the  forty-eight  were  assigned  to  them. 
A  further  fact  cited  to  show  the  diverse  origin 
of  the  Pentateuch  laws  has  to  do  with  the  age  at 
which  it  is  said  the  Levites  entered  upon  their 
duties.f  In  this  case  it  is  not  argued  that  one  code 
is  opposed  to  another,  but  that  a  single  code  is  di- 
vided against  itself.  It  is  one  statement  in  the 
book  of  Numbers  against  another  in  the  same 
book.  According  to  the  earlier,  the  Levite  was  to 
enter  on  his  service  at  the  sanctuary  at  thirty 
years  of  age;  according  to  the  later,  at  twenty- 
five.  But,  suppose  it  was  a  slip  of  the  pen  of  a 
scribe  in  the  one  passage,  it  would  not  be  unex- 

*  With  Josh,  xxi :  21,  24  cf.  Judges  i :  35. 

t  See  Numbers  iv  :  3,  23,  30,  35,  39,  43,  47  ;  viii :  24. 


98  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

ampled.  The  Septuagint  seems  to  have  thought 
so.  It  has  altered  the  text  in  Numbers  viii :  24  in 
order  to  bring  that  passage  into  harmony  with  the 
others,  unless,  indeed,  as  our  critics  are  accus- 
tomed to  say  in  some  similar  cases,  it  had  a  bet- 
ter text  than  that  represented  in  our  Hebrew 
Bibles.  Or  we  might  say  that,  the  matter  not 
being  one  of  supreme  importance,  this  is  but  an- 
other way  of  saying  that  the  service  was  to  begin 
between  the  years  of  twenty-five  and  thirty,  ac- 
cording to  circumstances.  Or  we  might  be  even 
permitted  to  suppose,  if  necessary,  that  the  law- 
giver purposely  changed  the  law,  finding  that  a 
larger  number  of  persons  was  really  required  than 
would  be  supplied  by  the  first  arrangement- 
David  is  represented  as  numbering  the  Levites, 
as  being  fit  for  service,  from  twenty  years  of  age.* 

In  any  case,  it  is  too  small  a  matter  to  be  the 
basis  of  such  important  conclusions.  It  comes  far 
short  of  having  the  significance  of  other  matters 
bearing  on  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch  to  Avhich 
attention  has  never  been  called.  For  example,  in 
one  passage  only  is  *'  strong  drink  "  permitted  to 
be  used,  in  place  of  wine,  with  the  daily  burnt 
offering.f  It  is  found  in  the  document  assigned 
by  our  critics  to  a  period  not  earlier  than  the 
Exile.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  singular  ex- 
ception? It  is  probably  but  one  of  many  places 
where  the  Pentateuch  laws  carry  upon  them  the 
stamp  of  the  period  to  which  they  belong ;  and  it 
is  all  the  more  important  that  it  is  beyond  the 

*I  Chronicles  xxiii :  37.     f  Numbei's  xxviii :  7, 


Pentateuch  Analysis— The  Codes.  99 

suspicion  of  being  designed.  It  appears  to  mark 
a  period  when  "  strong  drink  "  made  from  dates, 
or  in  some  other  way,  was  more  convenient  than 
wine — perhaps  was  the  only  available  material  for 
the  drink  offering  apart  from  water — that  is,  the 
period  of  the  exodus. 

Finally,  the  laws  concerning  the  manumission 
of  Hebrew  servants  is  adduced  as  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  conflict  existing  among  the  Pentateuch 
codes.*  It  does,  in  fact,  illustrate  considerable 
diversity  in  outward  form,  but  also,  and  to  quite 
a  marked  degree,  true  inward  harmony.  The 
statement  which  the  Bible  makes  concerning  the 
origin  of  the  codes  is  sufficient  to  explain  perfectly 
their  outward  diversity.  And  if  they  were  not 
meant  to  supplement  one  another,  and  together 
present  a  complete  rule,  their  contradictions  are 
certainly  of  the  baldest  character.  We  should  not 
only  be  unable  to  interpret  them  in  harmony  with 
one  another  as  originating  in  the  period  of  the 
exodus,  but  in  any  other  period  of  Israelitish  his- 
tory. The  law  of  Deuteronomy  is  naturally  fuller 
than  that  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  and  its 
amplifications  perfectly  accord  with  the  represen- 
tation of  its  rise  in  the  border  lands  of  Canaan.  In 
ordinary  circumstances,  a  Hebrew  servant  was  to 
be  dismissed  after  six  years.  If  he  elected  to 
remain  longer,  he  could  do  so  during  the  term  of 
his  natural  life.  In  either  case,  however,  the  year 
of  jubilee  put  an  absolute  limit  to  involuntary 
servitude. 


«  Willi  Ex.  xxi :  1-6,  Lev.  xxv  :  39-43,  cf.  Dcut.  xv  :  12-18. 


100  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

If  this  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  laws,  but 
they  are  to  be  looked  upon  as  antagonistic  to  one 
another,  then  the  latest  form,  which  requires  ser- 
vice, however  trifling  the  original  offense,  and  the 
servant  willing  or  nilling,  in  all  cases  until  death, 
or  the  year  of  jubilee,  shows  a  development  in 
barbarism  and  denationalization  in  the  direction 
of  Exodus,  Deuteronomy,  Leviticus  —  that  is  to 
say,  in  the  estimation  of  our  critics,  between  the 
time  of  Moses  and  Ezra — that  neither  they  nor 
any  one  else  would  be  inclined  to  admit. 


SUMMARY. 

The  investigation  necessarily  minute.  Critical 
symbols.  The  burden  of  proof  on  the  critics.  A 
sense  not  to  be  imposed  on  isolated  paragraphs  at 
variance  with  their  context.  Evasions  by  means 
of  the  Redactor  and  by  minute  subdivisions  of 
the  text. 

The  portion  to  be  discussed.  Section  first. 
Exodus  3  and  6 :  2ff.  not  duplicate  narratives 
of  the  same  event.  The  argument  thence  drawn 
for  the  divisive  hypothesis  illusive.  Gaps  and 
omissions  in  P's  narrative.  The  argument  from 
diction.     Perplexity  in  separating  J  and  E. 

Section  second.  Alleged  criteria.  The  resulting 
division.  Its  bearing  on  the  historical  truth  of  the 
events.  The  criteria  fallacious.  Various  length 
of  the  accounts  of  the  plagues.  Diction.  The 
plague  of  blood.  Progress  not  intermittent  when 
the  true  scheme  of  the  plagues  is  seen.  The  crit- 
ical hypothesis  beset  by  insuperable  difficulties. 


PENTATEUCHAL  ANALYSIS. 

BY  PROF.   WILLIAM   H.  GREEN,  D.D. 

In  the  limited  space  allowed  in  these  essays  it 
is  impossible  to  undertake  the  full  discussion  of 
the  critical  division  of  the  Pentateuch  in  all  its 
length  and  breadth,  to  which  such  a  multitude  of 
volumes  has  been  devoted,  and  upon  which  so 
many  learned  dissertations  have  been  written.  A 
treatment  of  this  subject  in  general  terms  would 
be  of  no  practical  benefit.  Critical  partition  is 
professedly  based  on  the  minute  examination  of 
paragraphs,  words  and  phrases,  and  cannot  be  met 
by  generalities,  but  only  by  a  similarly  minute  in- 
vestigation, in  which  the  arguments  adduced  in 
its  favour  can  be  rebutted  in  detail  and  the  oppos- 
ing considerations,  which  show  it  to  be  unreason- 
able or  impracticable,  can  likewise  be  exhibited. 
Such  an  investigation  must  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  be  tedious,  and  task  the  patience  of  the 
reader.  But  it  is  inevitable,  if  effective  work  is  to 
be  done,  or  any  intelligent  comprehension  of  the 
subject  is  to  be  gained  ;  for  the  region  in  which 
the  discussion  moves  is  the  minutiae  of  diction, 
style,  conception  and  the  connection  of  paragraphs 
and  sentences,  which  are  only  redeemed  from  their 
apparently  petty  character  by  the  momentous  con- 
sequences deduced  from  them  or  dependent  on 
them.  The  work  of  the  critic  is  the  cross-examin- 
ation of  witnesses,  which  busies  itself  with  trivial 
circumstances  aside  from  the  leading  features  of 


104  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

the  testimony.  But  it  is  precisely  by  its  coherence 
in  these  minor  .and  incidental  matters,  or  by  the 
lack  of  it,  that  .<:s  credibility  and  value  on  the 
whole  are  to  be  tested.  We  do  not  object  to  the 
searching  character  of  this  critical  investigation. 
Our  only  demand  is  that  it  should  be  fairly  and 
honestly  conducted. 

The  Pentateuch,  which  to  ordinary  readers 
seems  to  be  one  continuous  production,  resolves 
itself  upon  close  examination,  we  are  told,  into 
three  or  four  treatises  or  documents  giving  every 
indication  of  distinct  authorship,  which  must  in 
the  first  instance  have  existed  separately,  but  have 
been  subsequently  woven  together.  These  are 
technically  denoted  by  the  symbols  E  (Elohist),  J 
(Jahvist),  D  (Deuteronomist),  P  (Priestly  Narrator). 
J  and  E  were  first  combined  by  a  Redactor  (Rj), 
and  the  united  work  JE,  after  circulating  for  some 
time,  was  further  enlarged  by  other  Redactors, 
Rd  and  Rp,  who  added  Deuteronomy  and  the 
Priestly  Document.  And  thus  by  successive  steps 
the  work  reached  its  present  compass. 

An  obvious  remark  at  the  outset  is  that  the  ex- 
istence of  these  documents  and  redactors  is  purely 
a  matter  of  critical  discovery.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence of  their  existence  and  no  pretence  of  any 
apart  from  the  critical  tests  which  have  deter- 
mined the  analysis.  All  tradition  and  all  histor- 
ical testimony  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch 
are  against  them.  The  burden  of  proof  lies  whol- 
ly upon  the  critics.  And  this  proof  should  be 
clear  and  convincing  in  proportion  to  the  gravity 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  105 

and    the    revolutionary   character    of    the    conse- 
quences which  it  is  proposed  to  base  upon  it. 

It  is  further  obvious  that  the  composite  charac- 
ter of  the  Pentateuch,  supposing  this  were  estab- 
Hshed,  would  not  justify  the  critics  in  attributing 
a  different  sense  to  the  documents  in  their  origi- 
nal form  from  that  which  the  passages  extracted 
from  them  are  capable  of  having  in  their  present 
connection,  or  in  assuming  a  conflict  between 
them  which  does  not  exist  as  they  now  stand. 
The  critics  have  no  right  upon  their  own  princi- 
ples to  impeach  needlessly  and  arbitrarily  the  in- 
tegrity and  capacity  of  the  Redactors.  The  Re- 
dactors by  the  hypothesis  had  the  documents  be- 
fore them  separate  and  complete,  with  every  op- 
portunity to  ascertain  their  true  meaning ;  and  it 
ought  not  to  be  assumed  without  clear  proof  that 
this  has  been  obscured  or  falsified.  Modern  critics, 
who  possess  only  the  commingled  and  dislocated 
fragments  that  have  been  preserved  to  us,  are  far 
more  likely  to  be  mistaken.  If  new  meanings 
may  be  imposed  upon  paragraphs  or  sentences  in- 
compatible with  their  present  context ;  if  variance 
may  be  created  by  expunging  explanatory  or  har- 
monizing clauses ;  if  discrepancy  may  be  inferred 
from  a  silence  which  is  itself  produced  by  first  re- 
moving the  very  statements  that  are  desiderated 
from  the  connection ;  if  what  are  narrated  as  dis- 
tinct events  may  be  converted  into  irreconcileable 
accounts  of  the  same  transaction,  the  most  closely 
connected  composition  can  be  rent  asunder  into 
discordant    fragments.      Such    methods  are  sub- 


106  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

versive  of  all  just  interpretation.  The  operator 
imposes  his  own  ideas  upon  the  text  before  him 
and  draws  conclusions  which  have  no  warrant  but 
in  the  flights  of  his  ow^n  fancy. 

It  should  also  be  observed  that  the  insertions, 
omissions  and  modifications  attributed  to  the  Re- 
dactors are  merely  ingenious  methods  of  evading 
or  explaining  away  phenomena  at  variance  with 
the  proper  requirements  of  the  hypothesis.  Wher- 
ever it  is  assumed  that  the  Redactor  has  altered 
the  characteristic  words  or  phrases  of  his  sources, 
has  modified  their  language  or  ideas  or  inserted 
expressions  and  views  of  his  own,  the  meaning 
simply  is  that  the  facts  do  not  correspond  with 
the  hypothesis.  The  proof  relied  upon  to  estab- 
lish the  existence  of  these  otherwise  unknown 
documents  is  that  they  are  uniformly  character- 
ized by  a  certain  diction,  style  and  mode  of 
thought.  But  inasmuch  as  they  are  not  always  so 
characterized,  they  must  have  been  changed  by 
the  Redactors.  This  is  building  the  hypothesis 
upon  the  hypothesis  and  supporting  assumption 
by  assumption.  It  is  plain  that  every  alleged  in- 
terference of  the  Redactors  Aveakens  by  so  much 
the  evidence  on  which  the  hypothesis  itself  re- 
poses. 

Another  evasive  expedient  which  naturally  cre- 
ates distrust  in  critical  processes  as  they  are  at 
present  conducted,  is  the  minute  subdivision  to 
which  the  Redactors  are  at  times  assumed  to  have 
resorted  in  piecing  together  their  sources.  It 
might  with  a  show  of  reason  be  claimed  that  a 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  107 

judgment  can  be  formed  of  the  authorship  of  con- 
siderable paragraphs  and  sections  from  their  dic- 
tion and  style.  But  that  individual  sentences  and 
clauses  can  be  referred  with  any  certainty  to  their 
proper  authors,  or  that  a  sensible  compiler  would 
have  constructed  his  paragraphs  like  a  piece  of 
mosaic  from  bits  and  scraps  culled  alternately 
from  different  documents,  or  that  any  semblance 
of  continuity  could  be  given  to  paragraphs  so 
framed,  it  is  not  easy  to  suppose.  This  simply 
amounts  to  a  confession  that  the  phenomena  can- 
not be  brought  into  harmony  with  the  hypothesis 
by  any  less  violent  procedure.  What  the  critics 
reckon  to  be  criteria  of  distinct  writers  are  found 
closely  conjoined  in  sections  which  have  every  ap- 
pearance of  proceeding  from  the  same  pen,  but 
which  under  the  requirements  of  the  hypothesis 
must  be  torn  to  shreds. 

The  present  discussion  will  be  limited  to  the 
first  eleven  chapters  of  Exodus,  which  together 
with  chapters  12,  13,  whose  unity  has  been  suf- 
ficiently treated  elsewhere,'^  cover  the  entire  abode 
of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt.  This  is  a  por- 
tion quite  long  enough  to  test  the  hypothesis,  and 
to  exhibit  its  principles  and  methods,  while  it  is  as 
much  as  can  be  brought  under  review  in  the  space 
at  our  command.  And  it  is  besides  especially  suit- 
ed to  our  purpose  ;  for  the  assumption  of  preexist- 
ing documents  in  Genesis  does  not  stand  in  such 
obvious  conflict  with  Mosaic  authorsliip  as  the  ex- 
tension of  this  hypothesis  into  the  books  that  follow. 

^  The  Hebrew  Feasts,  ch.  iii.  and  iv. 


108  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

The  section  proposed  for  consideration  may  be 
divided  into  two  parts:  i.  Chapter  1-7:7,  the 
oppression  of  Israel  in  Egypt  and  the  preparation 
of  Moses  to  be  a  dehverer;  2.  7:  8-1 1 :  10,  the 
plagues  by  which  Pharaoh's  obstinacy  was  broken 
and  Israel  released.  In  the  first  part  the  critics 
assign  to  P  1:1-7,  ^3'  H  (except  some  words  in 
verses  7,  14,  and  perhaps  verse  6),  2 :  23/^-25,  6 : 2- 

It  is  alleged  that  chapter  3  and  6:  2ff.  are  paral- 
lel accounts  of  the  same  transaction.  Everything 
is  duplicated.  God  twice  reveals  to  Moses  his 
name  Jehovah  (3:13-15,  6:2,3),  ^^'^^  twice  an- 
nounces to  him  his  purpose  to  deliver  Israel  and 
bring  them  to  Canaan  by  his  instrumentality  i^y.J- 
10,  6:6-8,  11),  and  upon  Moses'  pleading  unfitness 
Aaron  is  twice  associated  with  him  (4:  10-16,  6: 
30-7  :  2).  The  critical  hypothesis,  it  is  said,  is  here 
explicitly  justified.  These  accounts  must  be  from 
two  different  writers,  6 :  2ff.  from  P,  and  chapter  3 
from  E.  This  being  in  the  intent  of  each  writer 
according  to  the  critics  the  first  communication 
of  the  name  Jehovah,  neither  of  them  could  have 
employed  this  name  in  the  antecedent  portion  of 
his  narrative.  All  preceding  passages  that  con- 
tain the  name  Jehovah,  must  accordingly  be  by  a 
third  writer,  J,  who  had  a  different  view  of  its  ori- 
gin. A  firm  basis,  it  is  contended,  is  thus  laid  for 
tracing  the  record  to  three  distinct  sources. 

But  this  is  foisting  a  meaning  upon  these  pas- 
sages which  they  plainly  will  not  bear.  It  is  in- 
consistent, I.  v/ith  the  repeated  occurrence  of  the 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  109 

name  Jehovah  in  the  antecedent  history,  showing 
that  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present 
form,  whether  Moses,  or  if  the  critics  please,  the 
three  Redactors  (Rj,  Rd  and  Rp),  did  not  so  under- 
stand them.  2.  With  chapter  3  itself.  If  the  author 
meant  that  the  name  Jehovah  was  first  revealed  in 
3:14,  15  and  systematically  abstained  for  that 
reason  from  using  it  before,  he  could  not  use  it  as 
he  does  in  verses  2,  4,  7.  The  critics  confess  this 
and  expunge  Jehovah  from  these  verses  as  an  in- 
sertion by  R,  thus  reconstructing  the  text  in  ac- 
cordance with  their  hypothesis.  And  how  could 
a  name  previously  unheard  of  assure  the  children 
of  Israel  that  Moses  had  really  been  commissioned 
by  the  God  of  their  fathers  (3  :  13,  15)?  3.  With 
the  real  meaning  of  6 :  2ff .,  which  is  not  that  Abra- 
ham, Isaac  and  Jacob  had  never  heard  the  word 
Jehovah,  but  that  they  had  had  no  such  experience 
of  what  the  name  involved  as  was  now  to  be 
granted  to  their  descendants.  God  is  known  by  his 
name  Jehovah  not  by  the  utterance  of  the  word 
but  by  an  experience  of  what  it  denotes.  It  is  so 
uniformly  throughout  the  Scriptures,  ^.^.,  Isa.  52:6. 
Jer.  9:24,  16:21,  Ezek.  39:6,  7.  God's  not  being 
known  by  the  patriarchs  by  his  name  Jehovah  is 
in  evident  contrast  with  the  repeated  declarations 
that  Israel  (6:7,  10:2),  the  Egyptians  (7:  5,  14:4, 
18),  and  Pharaoh  (7:  17,  8:  10,  22,  9:  14,  29,  comp. 
5  : 2),  should  know  that  he  was  Jehovah. 

The  support  which  the  critics  would  draw  for 
their  hypothesis  from  Ex.  iii.  and  vi.:  2,  etc.,  thus 
collapses  entirely.     As  these  passages  do  not  de- 


110  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

clare  the  occasion  of  the  first  employment  of  the 
name  Jehovah,  there  is  no  propriety  in  regarding 
them  as  distinct  versions  of  the  same  event,  and 
thus  tracing  them  to  separate  writers  ;  nor  in  hold- 
ing that  they  present  a  different  view  of  the  ori- 
gin of  the  name  Jehovah  from  those  sections  of 
Genesis  which  employ  it  from  the  earliest  periods, 
and  are  in  consequence  referred  to  a  third  writer. 

That  chapter  iii.  and  chapter  vi.  relate  different 
events  is  as  plain  as  the  history  can  make  it.  One 
took  place  at  Horeb,  the  other  in  Egypt.  They 
occurred  at  different  times  and  at  distinct  stages 
in  God's  revelation  to  Moses;  one  when  Moses 
was  first  commissioned,  the  other  after  he  had,  in 
pursuance  of  his  commission,  made  a  demand  upon 
Pharaoh  on  the  people's  behalf  which  only  re- 
sulted in  increasing  their  burdens.  That  under 
these  circumstances  the  Lord  should  renew  his 
former  assurances  to  Moses  with  increased  empha- 
sis, that  the  people  should  lose  the  faith  (6:9) 
which  they  had  before  (4:31),  that  Moses,  who 
had  distrusted  his  own  qualifications  at  the  begin- 
ning (4:10),  should  now  be  hopeless  of  success 
with  Pharaoh  (6:12),  and  that  Aaron,  who  had 
been  appointed  to  help  him  with  the  people 
(4:  16),  should  now  be  made  his  assistant  before 
the  king  (7: 1,2),  is  perfectly  natural  and  suggests 
no  suspicion  that  the  story  is  repeating  itself. 

The  narrative  assigned  to  P  is  halting  at  every 
point  from  the  want  of  those  connecting  or  ex- 
planatory parts  which  have  been  sundered  from 
it.     The  critics  violate  their  own  maxim  that  rep- 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  Ill 

etitions  give  evidence  of  distinct  writers  by  con- 
fessing that  the  enumeration  of  Jacob's  family 
(Ex.  1 :  1-5)  can  only  be  an  abridgment  by  P  of 
his  own  fuller  statement  Gen.  46  :  8-27  ;  and  their 
multiplication  (Ex.  i  :  7)  had  already  been  stated 
by  him  in  almost  identical  terms  (Gen.  47:27). 
From  this  he  leaps  quite  unaccountably  to  their 
oppression  by  the  Egyptians  (verses  13,  14),  who 
had  so  hospitably  received  them.  This  needs  for 
its  explanation  the  omitted  verses  8-12,  in  which 
moreover  "  more  and  mightier "  Clljyi  ^"1  (verse 
9)  is  a  plain  verbal  allusion  to  '^  multiplied  and 
waxed  exceeding  mighty"  "IDK^^I  inTl  (verse  7),  as 
is  also  ''multiply"  (verses  10,  12),  "  multiplied  and 
waxed  very  mighty"  (verse  20).  In  fact  verse  7 
supplies  the  keynote  of  all  that  follows  in  the 
chapter,  binding  the  whole  indissolubly  together. 
Verse  9  severed  from  it  is  quite  unexplained  in  a 
writer  who  had  spoken  of  the  descent  of  Jacob's 
family  into  Egypt,  but  had  said  nothing  of  the 
great  increase  of  his  descendants.  Verse  6,  "And 
Joseph  died,"  etc.,  plainly  prepares  the  way  for 
verse  8,  the  ''new  king  which  knew  not  Joseph." 
The  "  mortar  and  brick"  (verse  14)  both  allude  to 
the  building  of  treasure  cities  (verse  1 1),  and  to  the 
brickmaking  of  5:7,  etc.,  which  is  associated  Avith 
"  burdens  "  (5  : 4,  5),  as  in  i  :  1 1,  14.  These  obvi- 
ous references  by  one  writer  to  paragraphs  as- 
signed to  another  are  evaded  by  various  feats  of 
critical  surgery  which  have  no  justification  but  the 
necessity  created  by  the  hypothesis. 

From  the  account  of  Egyptian  oppression  (i  : 


113  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

13,  14)  whose  meagre  baldness  is  due  to  its  hav^ 
ing  been  rent  from  its  proper  place  in  the  series 
of  inflictions  of  growing  severity  (verses  1 1-22), 
P  springs  at  once  to  2:23^-25  with  its  mention  of 
a  covenant  with  Isaac,  although  none  such  is  re- 
corded except  by  J  (Gen.  26 : 2-5,  24) ;  and  thence 
to  6:  2,  etc.,  where  God  suddenly  speaks  to  Moses 
and  shortly  after  (verse  13),  to  Moses  and  Aaron, 
as  if  they  were  well-known  personages,  though 
there  had  been  no  previous  mention  of  their  ex- 
istence. This  incongruity,  created  by  the  removal 
of  the  very  account  (chapter  2,  etc.,)  here  presup- 
posed, gives  rise  to  new  critical  assumptions. 
Kuenen  fancies  that  P  had  spoken  before  of 
Moses  and  Aaron  in  some  passage  which  has  not 
been  preserved.  Kayser  gets  rid  of  the  allusion 
to  Aaron  by  referring  6:13-30  to  the  Redactor. 
Dillmann  declines  to  do  this,  but  with  a  like  view 
of  finding  the  first  mention  of  Aaron  in  7:1  he 
transposes  6:30-7:5  before  6: 13  and  places  7:6 
immediately  after  it.  Wellhausen  undertakes  to 
supply  the  missing  mention  of  Moses  and  Aaron 
by  the  conjecture  that  the  account  of  their  ances- 
try (6:i6ff.)  may  originally  have  preceded  6:2, 
though  the  record  of  Aaron's  wife  and  children 
(verse  23,  etc.)  is  in  his  judgment  inappropriate 
and  a  later  addition.  But  the  appositenessof  the 
entire  genealogy,  every  clause  of  which  is  in  anal- 
ogy with  those  previously  given,  appears  from  the 
fact  that  it  not  only  introduces  Aaron  and  Moses, 
who  are  just  entering  upon  the  momentous  task 
assigned  them,  but  likewise  Korah,  Nadab,  Abihu, 


Pentateuch AL  Analysis.  113 

Eleazar,  Ithamar  and  Phinehas,  who  are  to  figure 
in  the  subsequent  history.  Noldeke  confesses  the 
suitableness  of  the  table  in  general,  but  stumbles 
at  the  sons  of  Reuben  and  Simeon  (verses  14,  15) 
as  here  uncalled  for,  and  in  his  opinion  an  inter- 
polation. Jiilicher  very  properly  replies  that  an 
interpolator  would  not  have  stopped  with  insert- 
ing these  two  names  only,  when  there  was  equal 
reason  for  adding  all  the  rest  of  Jacob's  sons.  In 
fact  there  is  a  suitableness  in  verses  14,  15  stand- 
ing where  they  do  to  indicate  Levi's  place  as  the 
third  in  age  in  his  father's  family.  Jiilicher  pro- 
poses to  relieve  the  suddenness  of  the  mention  of 
Moses  in  6:2  by  transposing  before  it  the  entire 
genealogy  with  6:13  as  its  title,  which  will  thus 
connect  directly  with  2:25;  although  this  would 
place  ''Jehovah"  in  6:  13  prior  to  what  he  con- 
siders the  first  revelation  of  this  name  in  6:2,  3. 
But  after  all  this  self-imposed  trouble  and  these 
fruitless  conjectures  of  the  critics,  it  is  difficult  to 
see  why  the  reasons,  be  what  they  may,  which  led 
the  imaginary  Redactor  to  give  to  this  whole  pas- 
sage its  present  position,  may  not  have  been 
equally  influential  with  the  original  writer.  This 
busy  tinkering  betokens  merely  a  weak  spot,  which 
needs  in  some  way  to  be  covered  up. 

It  is  urged  that  6:2ff.  would  connect  well  with 
2:23-25,  to  which  its  language  contains  manifest 
allusions — ''heard  the  groaning,"  "children  of  Is- 
rael," "remembered  my  covenant,"  "bondage," 
"Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob."  But  each  of  these 
passages  connects  perfectly  with  its  present  con- 


114  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

text.  And  while  there  is  an  obvious  and  designed 
relationship  between  them,  they  need  not  on  that 
account  have  been  contiguous.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  2:23-25  is  bound 
in  the  closest  manner  to  the  immediately  follow- 
ing chapter,  which  must  have  proceeded  from  the 
same  pen,  and  cannot  possibly  have  been  from  a 
different  writer  and  independently  conceived,  as 
the  critics  would  have  us  suppose.  God's  appear- 
ance to  Moses  (chapter  3)  and  the  message  which 
he  gives  him  flow  directly  from  2:23-25,  which 
shapes  the  expressions  used,  e.  g.,  the  motive 
drawn  from  God's  relation  to  Abraham,  Isaac  and 
Jacob  (3:6,  15),  God  saw,  heard  and  knew  (3:7), 
(precisely  as  2 :  24,  25  where  A.  V.  "  looked  upon  " 
is  in  Heb.  ''saw,"  and  ''had  respect  unto"  is  in 
Heb.  "knew"),  the  cry  (np^H,  2:23  piJT)  of  the 
children  of  Israel  came  unto  God  (3 :  7,  9). 

In  6:6-8  the  criteria  of  the  different  writers  are 
sadly  mixed  ;  "  bondage,"  "  stretched  out  arm," 
"judgments,"  which  belong  to  P  are  combined 
with  "  burdens,"  "  rid,"  "  bring  into  the  land,"  and 
God's  swearing  to  give  the  land,  of  which  lifting 
the  hand  is  the  significant  gesture,  elsewhere  at- 
tributed to  J  or  E.  Among  the  phrases  counted 
as  P's  are  "of  uncircumcised  lips"  (6:12,  30), 
which  occurs  nowhere  else,  and  can  therefore  be 
no  criterion  of  style;  groaning  (2:24,  6:5),  and 
nowhere  else  in  the  Pentateuch;  "Pharaoh  king 
of  Egypt"  (6:  II,  13,  27,  29),  which  is  also  found 
(Gen.  41 :  46)  in  J  E  ;  God  remembering  (6 :  5),  but 
also  (Gen.  30:  22,  Ex.  32  :  13)  in  JE  ;  "  wonders  " 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  115 

(7:3),  but  also  (4:21)  in  JE;  ''armies"  or  hosts 
(6:26,7:4),  but  also  (Gen.  21:22,32,26:26)  in 
JE  ;  and  though  it  does  not  chance  to  be  applied 
to  Israel,  other  expressions  are  used  suggesting 
the  same  conception;  "judgments"  {6:6^  7:4), 
and  but  twice  elsewhere  in  the  Pentateuch  ;  "bring 
forth  my  people,  the  children  of  Israel  "  (7  :4),  as 
3:10  E. 

But  the  most  striking  words  and  phrases  of  this 
passage  are  drawn  from  Gen.  17:  i,  7,  8,  which  it 
reproduces  almost  completely,  "  appeared  to  Abra- 
ham," "  God  Almighty,"  "  establish  my  covenant," 
"  give  the  land  of  Canaan,"  "  land  of  their  pilgrim- 
age," "  I  w^ill  be  to  you  a  God."  And  in  almost 
every  instance  in  which  these  same  expressions 
are  found  elsewhere,  they  are  directly  and  obvi- 
ously traceable  to  this  one  source.  They  cannot 
properly  be  urged,  therefore,  as  characteristics  of 
style.  They  simply  show  familiarity  with  the  pas- 
sage upon  which  they  are  all  alike  based.  The 
critics  nevertheless  use  them  as  criteria ;  and  every 
passage  that  contains  them  is  for  that  reason, 
wherever  it  is  at  all  practicable,  assigned  to  P. 
And  yet  "  God  Almighty  "  is  confessedly  found  in 
J  (Gen.  43:  14),  and  "Almighty"  in  Gen.  49:25. 
The  phrase  "  establish  a  covenant "  suggests  its 
perpetuity.  It  is  accordingly  used  only  of  God's 
covenants  and  chiefly  of  those  with  Noah  and 
Abraham,  when  prominence  was  to  be  given  to 
the  idea  of  their  permanence.  The  alternate 
phrase  attributed  to  J,  "  make  (Heb.  cut)  a  cove- 
nant," is  equally  applicable  to  those  of  men,  and 


116  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

is  used  of  a  divine  covenant  only  when  the 
thought  is  directed  to  its  ratification,  especially  if 
that  was  solemnized,  as  in  Gen.  15:  18,  Ex.  24:8, 
by  sacrificial  rites.  Comp.  Ps.  50:5.  "Land  of 
Canaan,"  according  to  Kayser,  occurs  in  JE  no  less 
than  fifteen  times  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  "  Pil- 
grimage "  (or  wherein  he  was  a  stranger)  is  found 
six  times  in  Genesis,  and  is  in  every  instance  re- 
ferred to  P.  "  I  will  be  to  you  a  God  "  is  here 
associated  with  a  phrase,  ''  I  will  take  you  to  me 
for  a  people,"  which  occurs  nowhere  else  in  P. 

The  result  so  far  as  concerns  the  passages  as- 
signed to  P  is  this :  The  critics  sunder  a  few  verses 
from  their  present  connection  in  which  they  fit 
perfectly  well,  and  omitting  the  intervening  sec- 
tions, they  claim  that  these  verses  were  originally 
continuous.  But  the  omissions  leave  gaps  unfilled 
and  confuse  events  shown  to  be  distinct  by  re- 
corded differences  of  place  and  circumstances, 
needlessly  assuming  discrepancies  which  are 
wholly  created  by  these  critical  processes,  and 
imputing  incapacity  or  fraud  to  the  Redactor  or 
the  author  of  the  book  in  its  present  form.  And 
that  the  characteristic  diction  which  is  the  prin- 
cipal plea  urged  for  this  critical  dissection  is  not 
such  as  to  warrant  it,  appears  from  the  occasional 
intermingling  of  the  criteria  of  different  docu- 
ments, from  the  fact  that  some  of  the  alleged  cri- 
teria are  of  so  rare  occurrence  as  to  be  no  evi- 
dence of  style ;  that  others  exhibit  conformity  to 
sundry  other  paragraphs  simply  because  all  are 
alike  drawn  from  one  fundamental  passage ;  and 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  117 

others  still  are  not  peculiar  to  P,  but   found  in 
what  is  ascribed  to  J  or  E  as  well. 

After  removing  P's  share  of  i  :  1-7:7,  the  critics 
are  not  a  little  perplexed  in  their  attempt  to  par- 
cel the  remainder  between  J  and  E.*  Kayser 
thinks  it  impossible  to  disentangle  the  two  ac- 
counts without  breaking  the  connection.  Kuenen 
confesses  that  "  here  we  cannot  separate  two  dis- 
tinct documents  and  assign  its  share  to  each  with 
confidence.  The  most  we  can  hope  for  is  to  deter- 
mine whether  it  is  E  or  J  that  lies  at  the  basis  of 
the  narrative ;  and  sometimes  even  this  is  doubt- 
ful." Wellhausen  gives  to  J  i  :8-io  because  of  its 
resemblance  to  Gen.  11:6,  7,  thus  depriving  the 
oppression  i  :  1 1,  12  in  E  of  its  motive;  also  verses 
20^,  22,  making  this  barbarous  edict  the  very  first 
expedient  instead  of  a  desperate  resort  after  all 
other  attempts  had  failed,  and  sundering  it  from 

*  WELLHAUSEN. 

J.  1:6,  8-10,  206,  22;  2:ll-23a;  3:1-9,  16-20;  4:1-12,  [13- 
16],  18,  20a,  24-26,  27-31 ;  5:1-6:1. 

E.  1:11,  12,  15-20a,  21  ;  2:1-10;  3:10-15,  21,  22;  4:17,  19, 
20b,  21-23. 

Modified  by  R.  3:4,  6,  9,  21,  22  ;  4:17,  27-30. 

DILLMANN. 

J.  2:15-23a  ;  4:1-16,  19,  20a  [22,  23  transposed  from  else- 
where], 24-29a,  30,  31a,  c. 

E.  Chapter  3  (verses  2*,  4*,  7*,  8*  17*,  22*) ;  4:17,  18,  206, 
21,296,316;  chapter  5  (verses  1*,  2*,  4*,  5*  6*,  9*,  10*, 
116*,  13*,  14*,  15*,  19*,  20*,  21*-23*. 

Tlie  verses  marked  with  an  asterisk  have  been  modified 
by  the  Redactor. 

JULICHER. 

J.  2:23a  ;  4:19,  20a,  24-26 ;  3:7,  8,  16-22 ;  4:1-12,  29,  306, 
31 ;  5:3,  4,  6-21,  22,  23  ;  6:1. 

E.  1:8-12,  15-22;  2:1-21;  3:1-6,  9-14;  4:17,  18,  206;  5:1, 
2,5. 

R.  1:20;  2:22,  25;  3:15;  4:13-16,  21-23,  27,  28,  30a. 


118  Pentateuciial  Criticism. 

E's  account  of  Moses'  infancy  (2 :  i-io),  which  pre- 
supposes it  throughout.  DiUmann,  Schrader  and 
Jiilicher  avoid  these  incongruities  by  excluding  J 
from  chapter  i  altogether. 

That  Moses'  parents  are  spoken  of  indefinitely 
in  2 : 1  while  the  line  of  his  descent  is  accurately 
traced  in  6:  10  is  no  proof  of  diversity  of  authors, 
one  of  whom  had  more  exact  information  than  the 
other.  The  precise  statement  was  purposely  re- 
served for  the  supreme  crisis  in  Moses'  life,  and 
the  new  period  in  Israel's  history  thus  opened  as 
the  most  fitting  place  for  his  genealogy  in  accord- 
ance with  the  plan  of  the  Pentateuch.  Well- 
hausen  is  alone  in  the  attempt,  which  after  all  he 
confesses  to  be  impracticable,  to  sunder  2 :  i-io 
into  two  inconsistent  stories,  one  of  which  knows 
nothing  of  an  older  sister  of  Moses,  nor  of  his 
mother  being  engaged  as  nurse. 

Schrader  fancies  an  inconsistency  in  the  motive 
for  Moses'  flight  (verse  14  and  verse  15),  and  so 
assigns  2 : 1-14  to  E  and  verses  15-23^  to  J.  DiU- 
mann admits  that  no  such  inconsistency  exists,  but 
retains  the  same  division,  thus  connecting  verses 
11-14  with  verses  i-io,  to  which  verse  11  evi- 
dently alludes.  Wellhausen,  on  the  other  hand, 
connects  them  with  verses  i^-2T,a,  and  verse  15  is 
unintelligible  without  them.  In  fact  both  are 
right;  verses  11-14  link  the  whole  chapter  to- 
gether, being  alike  firmly  bound  to  what  precedes 
and  to  what  follows;  and  so  Julicher  confesses, 
who  refers  2  :  1-22  to  E,  as  the  allusions  in  18:3, 
4  E  to  2:15,  22  further  require.     But  in  giving 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  119 

verse  l^a  to  J,  he  severs  it  from  verse  15,  to  which 
it  manifestly  alludes. 

While  attributing  the  story  of  Moses'  birth  and 
infancy  to  E  and  his  residence  in  Midian  to  J,  the 
critics  nevertheless  confess  that  J  and  E  must 
alike  have  recorded  both.  E  must  have  had  a 
section  similar  to  that  which  is  imputed  to  J,  and 
J  must  have  had  one  similar  to  that  of  E.  So 
that  after  the  narrative  has  been  sundered  in 
twain,  it  is  straightway  necessary  to  assume  that 
each  part  originally  had  just  such  a  complement 
as  has  been  severed  from  it. 

In  chapters  3-5  it  is  once  more  assumed  that  J 
and  E  had  parallel  accounts  which  have  been  in- 
terwoven in  the  most  intricate  manner.  Dillmann 
derives  chapters  3  and  5  from  E,  though  with 
modifications  from  R  in  almost  every  verse. 
Wellhausen  derives  chapter  5  and  3:1-9,  16-20 
from  J  and  Julicher  also  from  J  nearly  the  whole 
of  chapter  5  together  with  3:7,8,  16-22.  Dill- 
mann assigns  3:1  to  J  in  distinction  from  2:18  E, 
because  the  Reuel  of  the  latter  is  in  the  former 
called  Jethro.  These  verses  are  alike  attributed 
to  J  by  Wellhausen  and  to  E  by  Julicher,  on  the 
assumption  that  the  name  Reuel  was  a  subsequent 
addition,  and  in  the  opinion  of  Wellhausen  Jethro 
likewise.  But  this  interchange  of  names  warrants 
no  critical  conclusions  whatever,  the  simple  ex- 
planation being  that  Reuel  is  his  proper  name,  and 
Jethro,  as  Clericus  long  since  observed,  his  ofificial 
designation ;  so  that  there  is  no  more  mystery 


120  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

in  the  case  than  in  the  substitution  of  "  Pharaoh  " 
for  ''  king  of  Egypt "  (i  :  i8,  19). 

Wellhausen  adrnits  that  3  :  1-4:  17  creates  the 
impression  of  ''  a  piece  from  one  casting."  The 
critics,  however,  insist  that  there  is  an  incongruity 
implying  diversity  of  authorship  between  4:  19  (J) 
Moses'  return  to  Egypt  by  immediate  divine  di- 
rection and  verse  18  (E),  his  previous  resolution 
to  go  with  Jethro's  permission.  In  verses  20a, 
24-26  (J)  he  takes  his  family  with  him  evidently 
intending  to  remain,  whereas  verse  18  (E)  merely 
contemplates  his  going  alone  on  a  brief  visit  and 
chapter  18  (E)  his  wife  and  children  remained 
with  Jethro,  where  verse  2d,  "after  he  had  sent 
her  back,"  is  regarded  as  a  harmonizing  interpola- 
tion by  R.  In  4: 17,  20I?  (E)  "this rod"  and  "the 
signs"  (with  the  article  in  Heb.)  seem  in  their 
present  connection  to  refer  to  verses  1-9  (J) ;  but 
the  rod  was  there  used  in  only  one  sign,  and  then 
not  as  an  instrument  but  as  the  object  wrought 
upon.  The  conclusion  is  thence  drawn  that  the 
allusion  is  not  to  verses  1-9,  but  to  some  narrative 
now  lost  in  which  a  miraculous  rod  was  given  to 
Moses  with  directions  regarding  the  signs  to  be 
wrought  by  it.  Again  the  signs  in  verses  1-9  were 
to  be  exhibited  before  the  people  (verses  i,  5), 
while  verse  21  (E)  speaks  of  "wonders  before 
Pharaoh,"  and  of  his  return  to  Egypt  as  yet  fu- 
ture, whereas  in  verse  20a  (J)  he  had  already  re- 
turned. 

Chapter  4:10-12,  recording  Moses'  reluctance 
and  God's  promise  to  be  with  his  mouth,  is  assign- 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  131 

ed  to  J.    With  this  Wellhausen  and  Jiilicher  regard 
the  appointment  of  Aaron  to  be  his  spokesman  as 
incompatible;  they  therefore  eject   verses    13-16 
as  a  later  addition,  notwithstanding  the  identical 
phrases,  "  O,  my  Lord  "  (verses  10,  13)  and  the  co- 
incidences  in   verses    12,    15.     Consistency   then 
obliges  them  to  trace  verses  27,  28  to  Rj,  and  to 
attribute   to    the    same   source   the    insertion  of 
Aaron's  name  in  verses  29-31  (J,)  so  as  to  make  it 
appear  that  in  J's  original  account  it  was  Moses 
who  spake  to  the  people  and  performed  the  signs. 
Dillmann  sets  all  this  aside  by  pointing  out  that 
verses  13-16  do  not  annul  but  confirm  verse  12. 
God  promises  to  be  with  Moses'  mouth  as  well  as 
with  Aaron's,  and  Aaron  is  associated  with  Moses, 
not  substituted  for  him.     There  is  consequently 
no  discrepancy  and  no  need  of  assuming  an  inter- 
polation, whether  of  these  verses  or  of  verses  27, 
28,  or  an  unauthorized  insertion  of  Aaron's  name. 
But  as  Dillmann  imputes  3:  18  to  E  (contrary  to 
Wellh.  and  J  til.),  and  thence  infers  that  E  speaks 
of  the  elders  and  J  of  Aaron,  verses  29-3 1  are  sliced 
accordingly.     Parts   of  verses  29,  31  are  assigned 
to  E,  viz.,  ''  he  gathered  all  the  elders  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel ;  .    .    .  and  they  heard  that  Jehovah 
had  visited  the  children  of  Israel  and  that  he  had 
looked  upon  their  affliction;"  and  the  remainder 
to  J.     From  all  which  it  appears  how  easy  it  is 
for  a  critic  to  manipulate  or  sunder  the  text  in  ac- 
cordance  with   a   preconceived    theory,  be   that 
what  it  may. 

The  discrepancies  alleged  in  this  chapter  are  so 


133  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

manifestly  of  the  critics'  own  making  that  it  seems 
a  needless  waste  of  words  to  refute  them.  After 
Moses  had  been  commissioned  to  deliver  Israel, 
3:  1-4:  17,  he  obtained  Jethro's  permission  to  re- 
turn to  Eg}'pt,  ver.  18.  Whereupon  the  Lord  con- 
firms his  resolution  by  the  encouraging  informa- 
tion of  the  death  of  those  who  sought  his  life,  ver. 
19.  This  had  been  before  communicated  to  the 
reader,  2  ;  23<?,  but  Moses  did  not  know  it  until 
now.  The  explanatory  remark  18:2^  showing 
the  consistency  of  the  narrative  is  rejected  by 
the  critics  as  an  interpolation,  without  the  slight- 
est authority  and  contrary  to  all  reason,  for  the 
mere  sake  of  creating  a  contradiction  where  none 
exists.  The  rod,  4:  17,  as  is  plain  from  7  :  15,  is 
that  of  4 :  2-4,  and  the  signs  are  those — whether 
heretofore  described  or  not — which  were  to  be 
wTought  by  its  instrumentality,  in  the  presence 
both  of  the  people  and  of  Pharaoh.  The  prelimi- 
nary statement  that  Moses  returned  to  the  land 
of  Egypt  is  made  at  the  outset,  ver.  20,  before  de- 
tailing the  occurrences  on  the  way,  just  as  the 
comprehensive  statement  is  made,  7  :  6,  that  Moses 
and  Aaron  did,  as  the  Lord  commanded  them, 
prior  to  the  detailed  narrative  which  extends 
through  this  and  the  subsequent  chapters. 

The  section  7:8-11:  10  is  acknowledged  to 
show  a  regular  progression  in  the  severity  and  ef- 
fectiveness of  the  plagues  described  until  they 
reach  their  awful  climax  in  the  death  of  the  first- 
born and  the  deliverance  of  Israel.  It  is  never- 
theless affirmed  that  it  yields  to  critical  analysis, 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  123 

and  that  by  following  suggestions  furnished  by 
the  preceding  chapters  it  can  be  separated  into 
three  constituents.  P  makes  Aaron  the  prophet 
of  Moses,  7:1,  insists  on  letting  the  children 
of  Israel  go  unconditionally,  6:  11,  7:  2,  and  de- 
clares that  Jehovah  will  lead  forth  his  people 
in  spite  of  Pharaoh's  continued  refusal,  7:5.  J 
and  E  make  Moses  the  speaker  before  the  king, 
4 :  22  ;  he  only  asks  permission  to  hold  a  feast  in 
the  wilderness,  5  :  1,3,  and  Pharaoh  shall  himself 
drive  the  people  out  of  his  land,  6:1.  According 
to  E.  4:  17,  but  not  J,  the  miracles  were  to  be 
wrought  by  Moses  with  his  rod. 

Guided  by  these  criteria  the  critics  resolve  the 
plagues  as  follows.*  In  P  Aaron  with  his  rod 
works  the  miracles.  These  are  conceived  of  not 
as  plagues  inflicted  on  the  Egyptians  so  much  as 
exhibitions  of  power,  with  which  the  sorcerers  vie 
with  partial  success  at  first  but  to  their  final  dis- 
comfiture. P  uses  a  fixed  form  with  regularly  re- 
curring phrases,  "Jehovah  spake  unto  Moses,  Say 
unto  Aaron  Stretch  out  thy  rod,  etc.,  that  there 
may  be,  etc.  And  they  did  so.  And  Aaron 
stretched  out  his  rod,  etc.,  and  there  was,  etc.  And 
the  magician's  did  so  w^ith  their  enchantments, 
etc.  And  Pharaoh's  heart  was  hardened,  and  he 
hearkened  not  unto  them,  as  Jehovah  had  said." 

In  J  Moses  goes  to  Pharaoh  and  demands  that 

he  should  let  the  people  go  to  serve  Jehovah,  and 

threatens  him,  in  case  of  refusal,  with  a  particular 

plague  mostly  at  a  fixed  time.     This  is  inflicted 

*  For  Note  see  next  page. 


124  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

by  Jehovah  without  any  human  instrumentality. 
Thereupon  the  king  commonly  summons  Moses 
and  Aaron — the  latter  being  simply  the  com- 
panion of  Moses — and  asks  their  intercession, 
promising  to  let  the  people  go.  Moses  consents 
to  intercede,  mostly  designating  an  interval  be- 

*  WELLHAUSEN. 

P.  7  :  8-13,  (1)  7 :  19,  20a,  21c,  22,  23  (2)  8  : 5-7,  lo5,  (3) 
8:16-19(6)9:8-12,  11:9,  10. 

J.  (1)  7  :  14-18,  (2)  7  :  25,  8  :  1-4,  8-15a,  (4)  8  :  20-32,  (o) 
9  :  1-7,  (7)  9  :  13-21,  22*-25*,  26-34,  (8)  10  :  1*-11,  136,  146, 
15--19,  (9)  10  :  28,  20,  11  :  4.S, 

E.  (1)  7  :  176,  206,  21a,  6,  24,  (7)  9 :  22*-24*,  35,  (8)  10  :  12, 
13a,  14a,  15*,  20,  (9)  10  :  21-27,  11 :  1-3. 

DILLMANN. 

P.  7  :  8-13,  (1)  7  :19,  20a,  216,  22,  (2)  8  :  5-7,  156,  (3)  8  :  16- 
19,(6)9:8-12,11  :  9,  10. 

J.  (1)  7  :  14-17a,  25,  (2)  8  :  1-4,  8-15a,  (4)  8  :  206-22,  236,  24, 
286,  29a,  30-32,  (5)  9  : 1-7,  (7)  9  :  13,  17-21,  236,  246,  25a,  26-30, 
33,  34,  (8)  10 :  1-7,  136c,  146,  15a,  16-19,  (9)  10  :  28,  29, 11  :  4- 
8. 

E.  (1)  7  :  15*,  176,  18,  206,  21a,  23,  24  (4)  8  :  20a,  23a,  25- 
28a,  296,  (7)  9  :  13*,  22,  23a,  24a,  256,  31,  32,  35  (8)  10  :  8-12, 
13a,  14a,  156c,  20  (9)  10  :  21-27,  11 :  1-3. 

R.  9:14-16. 

JULICHER. 

P.  7  :  8-13,  (1)  7  :  19,  20a,  216,  22,  (2)  8:  5-7,  156,  (3)  8  :  16- 
19,  (6)  9  :  8-12, 11 :  9,  10. 

J.  (1)  7  :  14-1 7a,  (156*,  17*),  23,  256  (2)  8  :  1-4,  8*-14(12*) 
(4)  S  :  20-32  (226*,  23*,  25*,  26*,  27*),  (5)  9  : 1-7,  (7)  9  :  13,  17, 
18,  236,  24*,  25*,  26,  27*,  28*,  29*,  31-33*,  34*,  (8)  10  :  la,  3*- 
6a,  136c,  146,  15ac,  16*-19,  11  :  4-8. 

E.  (1)  7  :  176,  18,  206,  21,  24,  25a,  (7)  9  :  22,  23a,  24*,  28*, 
80,  ;55a,  (8)  10  :  7,  8-13a,  14a,  156,  (9)  10  :  21-29,  11  :  1-3. 

R.  9  :  14-16,  19-21,  296,  30,  356,  10  :  16,  2,  66. 

The  figures  enclosed  in  parentheses  represent  the  differ- 
ent pla.i^ues  in  their  order.  (1)  blood,  (2)  frog-s,  (3)  lice,  (4) 
flies,  (5)  murrain,  (6)  boils,  (7)  hail,  (8)  locusts,  (9)  darkness. 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  125 

forehand,  and  at  the  appointed  time  the  plague  is 
removed.  In  some  of  the  plagues  a  distinction  is 
expressly  made  between  Israel  and  Egypt. 

In  E,  which  is  much  more  fragmentary  than 
the  others,  the  miracles  are  wrought  by  the  rod  of 
Moses,  and  after  particular  plagues  Pharaoh  makes 
greater  and  greater  concessions. 

Upon  this  scheme  no  one  of  the  narrators  has 
recorded  all  the  plagues.  P  only  four,  J  six,  E 
four  or  five.  All  these  unite  upon  one  (blood); 
two  on  four  (P  and  J  frogs ;  J  and  E  flies,  hail, 
locusts).  Of  the  four  remaining,  two  (lice,  boils) 
are  peculiar  to  P,  one  (murrain)  to  J,  and  one 
(darkness)  to  E.  Whence  it  is  inferred  that  these 
different  traditions  agreed  that  certain  extraordi- 
nary events  preceded  and  facilitated  the  exodus; 
but  they  were  not  agreed  as  to  what  these  events 
were.  The  gravity  of  the  conclusion  makes  it  im- 
portant that  we  should  examine  with  some  care 
the  basis  upon  which  it  rests. 

It  requires  but  a  moment's  inspection  to  see 
that  the  alleged  diversities,  which  are  made  the 
criteria  of  the  different  writers,  and  are  urged  in 
justification  of  the  proposed  severance,  do  not  ex- 
ist.' Thus  the  alleged  superior  prominence  of 
Aaron  in  P  is  groundless.  Precisely  the  same 
function  is  assigned  to  him  4: 14-16  (J)  as  in  7  : 2 
(P).  According  to  4:30  (J)  "Aaron  spake  the 
words  which  the  Lord  had  spoken  to  Moses  and 
did  the  signs" — the  very  criterion  by  which  the 
critics  propose  to  distinguish  P.  So  in  5:1  (E) 
Moses  and  Aaron  go  in  and  speak  to   Pharaoh. 


126  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Here,,  as  in  other  passages  assigned  to  JE  where 
the  two  brothers  are  combined,  the  critics  sum- 
marily eject  "Aaron"  from  the  text  for  no  rea- 
son but  to  adapt  it  better  to  their  hypothesis. 
Moses  was  directed,  3:18  (E),  to  take  the  elders 
with  him  to  the  king.  This  is  no  warrant,  how- 
ever, for  substituting  the  elders  for  Aaron  in  5:1, 
confirmed  as  the  latter  is  by  verses  4.  20.  It 
simply  shows  that  the  writer  was  not  painfully 
precise  in  stating  everything  in  so  many  words 
which  could  be  readily  enough  inferred  from  what 
he  had  said  previously.  Moreover  Aaron  did  not 
work  all  the  miracles  which  the  critics  ascribe  to 
P.  Not  to  speak  of  the  plague  of  the  firstborn 
(12:12)  which  was  inflicted  by  Jehovah  without 
human  agency,  the  boils  were  produced  not  by 
Aaron's  rod,  but  by  Moses  sprinkling  ashes  to- 
Vv-ard  heaven  (9:8,  10) ;  so  that  by  the  confession 
of  the  critics  the  miracles  recorded  by  the  same 
writer  need  not  all  be  wrought  by  an  absolutely 
uniform  method.  It  is  purely  arbitrary,  therefore, 
on  their  own  principles,  to  refer  9  :  22,  23,  10:  12, 
13,  21,  22  to  a  different  writer  from  7 :  19,  8:5,  6, 
16,  17,  where  the  expressions  are  identical  even  to 
the  remarkable  interchange  of  "hand  '*  and  "rod," 
only  the  actor  is  Moses  instead  of  Aaron.  In 
11:10  P  ascribes  the  miracles  to  the  agency  of 
Moses  as  well  as  Aaron. 

Besides,  if  the  letter  of  7 : 2,  3  be  pressed,  no 
mention  is  there  made  of  Aaron  as  concerned  in 
working  miracles.  God  says  that  He  will  himself 
multiply  his  signs  and  wonders  (the  very  feature 


PENTATEUCllAL  ANALYSIS.  127 

attributed  to  J),  while  Aaron  is  simply  to  speak 
to  Pharaoh.  Express  mention  is  made  (10:3,  8) 
(J)  of  Aaron  as  joined  with  Moses  in  speaking  to 
Pharaoh,  which,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  the 
king  was  in  the  habit  of  summoning  both  the 
brothers  to  an  interview,  makes  it  probable  that 
whenever  Moses  is  said  to  have  spoken  to  Pharaoh 
the  meaning  is  that  he  did  so  through  the  medium 
of  Aaron.  But  however  this  may  be,  if  we  accept 
the  division  made  by  the  critics,  P  never  represents 
either  Moses  or  Aaron  as  uttering  a  word  to 
Pharaoh.  A  series  of  miracles  is  wrought  with  no 
other  object  apparently  than  to  see  whether 
Aaron  can  outdo  Pharaoh's  jugglers.  It  is  re- 
peated time  after  time  that  Pharaoh's  heart  was 
hardened,  and  he  hearkened  not  unto  them.  But 
what  they  had  said  or  to  what  Pharaoh  refused  to 
listen  does  not  appear.  Jiilicher  makes  himself 
merry  over  P's  description,  which  he  likens  to  a 
tournament  with  its  successive  feats  at  arms,  and 
in  which  no  regard  is  had  to  time  or  place.  Moses 
and  Aaron  remain  in  the  presence  of  the  king  from 
beginning  to  end,  whether  in  the  palace  or  the 
open  air  is  not  said,  only  once  running  into  a 
neighboring  house  for  some  ashes,  the  miracles 
crowding  one  upon  another  in  quick  succession 
till  all  are  ended.  He  seems  quite  unconscious 
that  his  ridicule  really  falls  upon  the  absurd  di- 
vision which  the  critics  have  made  of  a  narrative 
that  is  perspicuous  and  well  ordered  throughout. 
The  alleged  difference  in  the  demand  made 
upon  Pharaoh  in  P  and  in  J  and  E  is  also  without 


128  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

foundation,  as  is  evident  from  what  has  just  been 
said.  P  records  no  demand  whatever  upon  Pha. 
raoh  in  even  a  single  instance.  That  the  king's 
unreasonable  obstinacy  might  be  set  in  the 
strongest  light,  no  more  is  ever  asked  of  him  than 
to  let  Israel  go  for  three  days  in  the  Avilderness  to 
sacrifice  to  Jehovah.  This  is  stated  fully  in  the 
first  interview  (5:1,  3),  but  commonly  in  the 
briefer  form  "  let  my  people  go,  that  they  may 
serve  me"  (8 :  i).  Every  such  application  to  Pha- 
raoh is  without  exception  referred  either  to  J  or 
E,  and  an  attempt  made  to  establish  a  difference 
in  their  phraseology — as  though  J  said  '^  serve  " 
and  E  "sacrifice,"  or  "  hold  a  feast" — which  can  only 
be  carried  through  by  assuming  that  wherever  the 
wrong  word  is  used  it  has  been  altered  by  R.  As 
no  passage  is  allowed  to  P  in  which  Moses  and 
Aaron  address  the  king  on  this  subject  there  is  no 
material  for  comparison.  The  reason  why  the 
limited  form  of  the  request  is  nowhere  found  in  P 
is  simply  because  every  paragraph  or  clause  in 
which  it  is  expressed  or  implied  is  for  that  reason 
declared  not  to  belong  to  him.  To  be  sure,  Moses 
and  Aaron  are  directed  in  P  to  speak  to  Pharaoh 
to  let  Israel  go  out  of  his  land  (6 :  11,  7:2,  comp. 
1 1 :  10),  but  the  form  of  expression  is  precisely 
parallel  to  7 :  14  J.  And  that  it  was  the  divine  in- 
tention from  the  outset  to  effect  Israel's  absolute 
release  is  as  plain  from  what  is  attributed  to  J 
and  £(3:8,  10,  19,  20),  as  from  anything  contained 
in  P. 

And  that  Pharaoh,  constrained  by  God's  strong 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  129 

hand,  should  drive  Israel  out  of  his  land  (6:i, 
JE)  is  not  inconsistent  with  P's  declaration 
(7  '.4)  that  Pharaoh  should  refuse  to  hearken,  and 
that  the  Lord  would  bring  forth  Israel  out  of 
Egypt  by  great  judgments.  JE  gives  the  solu- 
tion 3  :  19,  20.  The  design  of  the  judgments  was 
to  break  Pharaoh's  obstinacy  and  compel  his  stout 
heart  to  yield.  And  P  nowhere  affirms  that  at 
the  critical  moment  of  Israel's  departure  they  had 
failed  to  accomplish  this  end. 

The  basis  on  which  the  critics  professedly  rest 
their  analysis  thus  fails  them  at  every  point. 

The  space  devoted  to  different  plagues  varies 
considerably;  and  it  has  been  urged  that  this  in- 
dicates the  composite  character  of  the  narrative. 
But  this  argument  is  of  no  avail  for  the  critics,  for 
the  disparity  continues  after  they  have  made  their 
partition.  Murrain  (J)  and  darkness  (E)  have  in  all 
but  seven  verses  each ;  while  after  E  and  R  have 
each  had  their  share  Dillmann  still  reserves  fifteen 
verses  for  J  in  the  account  of  the  hail,  and  thir- 
teen in  that  of  the  locusts.  It  is  further  observ- 
able that  the  attendant  circumstances  and  the 
dealings  with  Pharaoh  are  assigned  to  JE,  while 
P  is  limited  to  the  bare  record  of  the  plague  it- 
self. This  is  an  unwarranted  sundering  of  what 
belongs  together,  and  is  only  properly  intelligible 
in  connection. 

Scarcely  any  account  is  made  of  diction  in  di- 
viding this  section  ;  and,  as  it  would  appear,  with 
good  reason,  for  what  is  urged  is  meagre  enough. 
P  uses  the  term  ''  wonders  "  (7 :  3,  9,  1 1 :  9,  10),  but 


130  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

so  does  E  (4:21);  and  "pool"  (7:  19),  which  oc- 
curs but  twice  besides  in  the  whole  Pentateuch. 
P  says  "  hearken  to,"  J  ''  hearken  to  the  voice  of." 
"  Magicians,"  though  in  Genesis  used  by  E,  is  here 
ascribed  to  P.  Three  words  are  employed  to  de- 
note the  hardening  of  Pharaoh's  heart,  which  vary 
slightly  in  signification,  nit'p  hard  or  obdurate,  pin 
stout  or  obstinate,  "12D  heavy,  hard  to  move  or 
stubborn.  These  are  used  in  both  intransitive 
and  transitive  forms,  and  the  latter  with  the  Lord 
or  Pharaoh  himself  as  subjects.  Strenuous  en- 
deavours have  been  made  to  parcel  these  in  some 
distinctive  way  among  the  different  writers ;  but 
with  all  the  liberties  that  the  critics  have  allowed 
themselves,  they  have  not  been  very  successful  as 
yet. 

In  8:15  J's  phrase  "hardened  his  heart"  and 
P's  "hearkened  not  unto  them"  occur  together; 
and  instead  of  drawing  the  natural  conclusion 
that  one  writer  used  both  phrases  the  critics  split 
the  sentence  and  divide  it  between  J  and  P. 
Two  different  words  for  "hardening"  occur  after 
the  plague  of  hail  (9:34,  35),  one  transitive  at- 
tributing  it  to  Pharaoh's  own  agency,  the  other 
intransitive.  Instead  of  admitting  that  the  same 
writer  has  here  used  both  words,  the  critics  isolate 
the  second  verse  from  its  context  and  seek  for  it 
some  other  connection.  The  same  thing  is  done 
with  10 :  20,  where  the  wrong  word  occurs  for  the 
theory.  The  theory  rules,  and  the  text  is  re- 
modelled to  correspond. 

And  after  all  the  only  result  attained  is  that  J 


FENTATEUCHAL  ANALYSIS.  131 

always  uses  "1:22,  and  yet  even  he  interchanges 
the  adjectives  "12D  and  pin  (10:14,  19);  P  and  E 
alike  make  use  of  pin  and  that  in  both  its  transi- 
tive and  intransitive  forms ;  and  P  uses  both  pin 
and  r\]Vp.  If  two  of  these  supposititious  writers 
employ  the  same  word  to  express  this  idea,  and  one 
of  them  uses  two  distinct  words  for  the  purpose, 
why  is  it  not  quite  as  easy  to  suppose  that  the 
same  writer  has,  for  the  sake  of  varying  the  ex- 
pression of  a  thought  so  frequently  repeated,  em- 
ployed all  three  of  the  terms  ?  The  theory  neither 
explains  nor  simplifies  the  matter,  and  is  not  worth 
the  pains  that  are  taken  to  carry  it  consistently 
through. 

P  has  a  different  word  for  ''serpent"  (7:9,  10, 
12)  from  that  of  J  (4:3).  The  critics  find  here 
two  versions  of  the  same  story,  which  J  locates  in 
the  desert  and  P  at  the  court  of  Pharaoh.  In 
Dillmann's  opinion  the  latter  is  the  original  form 
of  the  incident,  while  Jiilicher  is  equally  confident 
that  the  former  is  its  proper  place.  They  are  both 
right ;  each  occurrence  was  appropriate  to  the  oc- 
casion on  which  it  is  related.  And  it  is  not  un- 
likely that  the  new  application  of  the  miracle  sug- 
gested the  altered  term,  so  that  the  ordinary  word 
for  serpent  was  replaced  by  one  less  usual,  which 
may  possibly  have  had  special  appositeness  to 
Egypt,  or  to  the  arts  of  serpent  charmers. 
Enough  is  not  known  of  the  usage  of  the  word 
to  verify  this  conjecture ;  but  it  is  more  plausible 
surely  than  the  critical  assumption  that  it  is  an 
unmeaning  characteristic  of  style. 


132  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

According  to  Knobel  and  Schrader,  P's  account 
of  the  first  plague,  the  change  of  water  to  blood, 
is  found  in  7 :  19-22.  But  if  that  be  so,  one  of  the 
discrepancies  insisted  on  between  P  and  JE  ceases 
to  exist.  It  is  said  that  P  represents  all  the  water 
in  the  land  of  Egypt  as  turned  to  blood,  while  JE 
limits  this  to  the  water  of  the  river.  But  while 
verse  19  speaks  of  streams  and  rivers  and  ponds 
and  pools  and  even  the  water  in  vessels  of  wood 
and  stone  as  converted  into  blood,  verse  20  lays 
stress  only  upon  the  water  of  the  river,  and  verse 
21  speaks  of  the  fish  dying  in  the  river  and  the 
impossibility  of  drinking  the  water  of  the  river. 
Noldeke  and  Kayser,  therefore,  assign  these  last 
two  verses  which  occur  in  the  midst  of  P's  state- 
ment to  JE,  with  the  exception  of  the  first  clause 
of  verse  20,  "And  Moses  and  Aaron  did  so  as  the 
Lord  commanded."  Dillmann  and  Wellhausen 
do  the  same,  only  they  except  in  addition  the  last 
clause  of  verse  21,  "  And  there  was  blood  through- 
out all  the  land  of  Egypt." 

The  last  named  critics  further  undertake  to 
separate  J  from  E.  They  call  attention  to  the 
sudden  change  of  speaker  in  verse  17.  In  the  first 
clause  "I"  means  Jehovah;  in  the  second  clause 
with  no  formal  indication  that  another  is  speaking, 
"I"  as  evidently  means  Moses.  This  is  regarded 
as  indicating  a  confusion  in  the  text  arising  from 
the  blending  of  two  accounts.  Verses  14  to  17,  as 
far  as  the  words  ''Behold,  I,"  or  ''I  will  smite," 
belong  to  J,  who  attributes  the  plagues  to  the  im- 
mediate agency  of  God.     The  remainder  of  verse 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  133 

17  and  perhaps  verse  18  belong  to  E,  who  always 
employs  the  instrumentality  of  Moses'  rod.  E's 
account  recommences  verse  20  with  the  words, 
''And  he  (the  pronoun  is  by  the  critics  referred 
to  Moses)  lifted  up  the  rod,"  etc.,  and  continues 
in  verse  21  as  far  as  ''water  of  the  river,"  and 
finally  embraces  verses  23,  24.  Then  verse  25, 
which  speaks  of  Jehovah  smiting  the  river,  is  the 
conclusion  of  J's  account.  This  partition  by  Dill- 
mann,  from  which  Wellhausen's  varies  slightly,  is 
exceedingly  ingenious,  and  accommodated  with 
marvellous  skill  to  the  phenomena  of  these  verses. 
The  close  verbal  correspondence  between  verses 
17Z',  18  and  20b,  21a,  the  correspondence  again  be- 
tween verse  19  and  8:5,  and  the  divergence  be- 
tween verses  19  and  20,  seem  at  first  sight  to  rec- 
ommend it. 

But  a  moment's  reflection  is  sufficient  to  show 
that  it  cannot  be  correct.  I.  The  message  to 
Pharaoh  (verses  14-18),  the  direction  to  Aaron  to 
execute  what  had  been  announced  to  Pharaoh 
(verse  19),  and  his  doing  as  he  was  directed  (verse 
20),  belong  together,  and  are  necessary  to  complete 
one  another.  They  cannot  be  assigned  to  differ- 
ent writers  without  making  each  part  a  disconnect- 
ed fragment.  According  to  the  critics'  division 
J  gives  no  account  of  the  infliction  of  the  plague ; 
and  E's  portion  begins  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence, 
with  no  intimation  who  is  speaking  or  to  whom 
the  words  are  addressed.  2.  The  verbal  corres- 
pondence already  remarked  upon  is  no  argument 
for  the  divisive   hypothesis,  for  it  is  at  once  ex- 


134  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

plained  if  all  is  from  the  same  writer.  The  double 
application  of  the  pronoun  *'  I  "  in  verse  \J  obvi- 
ously arises  from  the  fact  that  the  words  are  those 
of  Moses  (verse  i6),  who  passes  from  direct  cita- 
tion of  the  language  of  Jehovah,  to  speaking  in 
his  own  person,  as  the  prophets  and  other  mes- 
sengers of  the  Most  High  so  often  do.  The  as- 
sumption that  it  is  due  to  the  Redactor's  confus- 
ing separate  sentences  imputes  a  degree  of  care- 
lessness or  stupidity  to  him  that  is  quite  incon- 
ceivable. The  mention  of  the  rod,  so  far  from 
being  out  of  place  or  requiring  the  assumption  of 
a  different  writer,  is  just  what  verse  15  prepares 
us  to  expect.  Moses  is  there  told  to  take  in  his 
hand  the  rod  which  was  turned  to  a  serpent,  in 
order  of  course  to  use  it  in  working  the  miracle. 
This  is  particularly  perplexing  to  the  critics,  for  it 
completely  annuls  their  distinction  of  J  and  E.  It 
is  in  a  context  belonging  to  J.  It  refers  explicitly 
to  4:2,  3,  also  belonging  to  J,  and  of  which  E 
knows  nothing.  And  yet  it  implies  a  use  of  the 
rod  characteristic  of  E  and  foreign  to  J.  They 
can  only  get  rid  of  it,  as  they  rid  themselves  of 
everything  inconsistent  with  their  hypothesis,  by 
expunging  it  from  the  text  as  an  insertion  by  R. 
There  is  no  inconsistency  in  Moses  speaking  of 
smiting  the  waters,  when  in  fact  they  were  smit- 
ten by  Aaron  at  his  bidding.  Moses  simply  acts 
through  the  instrumentality  of  Aaron.  Nor  is 
there  any  want  of  agreement  between  the  com- 
mand "  Take  thy  rod  and  stretch  out  thine  hand 
upon  the  waters  "  and  the  consequent  action,  "  he 


PeNTATEUCIIAL  iVXALYSIS.  135 

lifted  up  the  rod  and  smote  the  waters."  Stretch- 
ing out  the  rod  and  smiting  with  the  rod  are  sim- 
ilarly combined  (8  :  i6,  17),  only  there  both  terms 
are  inserted  in  each  clause,  while  here  the  two 
clauses  supplement  each  other.  That  the  action 
cannot  be  severed  from  the  preceding  command 
and  assigned  to  a  different  writer  is  further  appar- 
ent because  in  that  case  there  would  be  no  de- 
tailed statement  as  in  the  parallel  instances  (8:6, 
17)  of  Aaron's  doing  as  he  was  directed.  Nor  is 
there  any  discrepancy  in  all  the  waters  of  Egypt 
becoming  blood,  whereas  Moses  had  simply 
spoken  to  Pharaoh  of  the  water  of  the  river.  This 
was  singled  out  as  the  most  conspicuous  and  im- 
portant ;  and  so  again  in  recording  the  fulfillment, 
which  yet  proceeds  to  add  that  there  was  blood 
throughout  all  the  land  of  Egypt.  And  the  sug- 
gestion that  the  Lord's  smiting  the  river  involves 
a  different  conception  from  its  waters  being 
changed  to  blood  when  smitten  by  divine  direc- 
tion refutes  itself. 

The  plague  of  blood  thus  refuses  to  yield  to  the 
analysis  of  the  critics.  They  reduce  a  connected 
and  well  arranged  narrative  to  mutilated  fragments 
upon  pleas  which  will  not  bear  examination. 
With  others  of  the  plagues  they  are  less  success- 
ful still ;  notably  so  with  those  of  the  hail  and  lo- 
custs. In  fact  they  confess  themselves  that  the 
analysis  cannot  be  carried  through  :  and  the  mar- 
vellous medley  which  they  make  is  apparent  from 
the  manner  in  which  they  riddle  the  text  into  bits 
in  their  attempt  to  disentangle  J  and  E. 


136  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

One  plea  for  the  critical  partition  of  the  plagues 
remains  to  be  briefly  considered.  It  is  that  while 
there  is  an  evident  plan  and  progress  in  them  in 
various  respects,  this  is  intermittent  instead  of  be- 
ing continuous  throughout.  It  is  commonly  con- 
ceded that  there  is  a  consistent  advance  in  sever- 
ity from  first  to  last.  But  the  magicians  only  ap- 
pear in  the  ist,  2nd,  3rd  and  6th.  The  effect  on 
the  king  is  noted  in  the  2nd,  4th,  7th,  8th  and  9th. 
The  1st,  2nd  and  4th,  and  especially  the  7th  and 
8th,  are  related  in  a  diffuse  and  circumstantial  man- 
ner, while  in  other  cases  the  record  is  briefer  and 
more  scanty. 

But  the  complaint  arises  wholly  from  the  failure 
to  observe  the  scheme  of  the  whole.  The  nine 
plagues  preceding  the  tenth  and  last  are  arranged 
in  three  series  of  three  each.  In  the  first  two 
members  of  each  series  the  plague  is  preannounced 
to  Pharaoh,  the  first  beginning  each  time  with 
the  same  identical  phrase  (7  :  15,  8  :  20,  9:  13) ;  so 
the  second  more  briefly  (8:  i,  9:  I,  lo:  i);  in  the 
third  no  preannouncement  is  made  (8:16,  9:8, 
10  :  20).  In  the  first  three  the  magicians  use  their 
enchantments,  failing  in  the  third,  after  which  they 
make  no  further  attempt,  and  are  only  mentioned 
once  again  in  the  plague  inflicted  upon  persons, 
where  their  discomfiture  is  completed  by  their 
suffering  from  boils  like  the  rest.  From  the  first 
member  of  the  second  series  onward  a  distinction 
is  made  between  Egypt  and  Goshen,  where 
the  children  of  Israel  dwelt.  In  the  first  series 
and  again  in  the  second  the  king  sent  once  for 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  137 

Moses  and  Aaron  to  intercede  for  him  in  that  par. 
ticular  plague  which  he  found  personally  most 
distressing ;  in  the  last  series  the  unparalleled 
character  of  each  is  specially  remarked,  and  the 
king  sent  for  Moses  and  Aaron  at  each  successive 
plague  with  increasing  urgency.  The  first  series 
is  regularly  brought  on  by  Aaron  with  his  rod, 
the  third  by  Moses  with  his  rod ;  in  the  second 
no  rod  is  mentioned.  Other  particulars  might  be 
noted  ;  but  these  are  sufficient  to  show  that  there 
is  a  regular  scheme  consistently  carried  out  from 
first  to  last,  such  as  cannot  be  accounted  for  by 
the  promiscuous  blending  of  different  independent 
accounts. 

The  critics  can  say  plausible  things  in  defence 
of  their  hypothesis,  and  they  show  surprising 
adroitness  in  handling  it.  But  it  seems  to  me  that 
it  is  clogged  with  insuperable  difficulties  which 
should  prevent  its  acceptance  by  thoughtful  and 
considerate  minds  who  are  not  captivated  by  brill- 
iant novelties,  and  who  are  not  willing  to  surren- 
der the  truth  of  the  sacred  history  and  the  firm 
basis  on  which  it  rests,  until  some  good  reason  can 
be  given  for  so  doing. 


13J-i41 


CONTENTS. 


§  1.    The  Question  Stated. 

§  2.    The  Testimony  as  to  what  Portions  of  the 
Pentateuch  were  written  by  Moses. 

§  3.     The  Testimony  as  to  Reception  of  the  Pen- 
tateuchal  Revelation  by  Moses. 

§  4.     The  Indirect  Evidence  on  the  Mosaic  Cha  - 
acter  of  the  Pentateuch. 

■  5.     The  Testimony  Concerning  the  Revealed  and 
Historical  Character  of  the  Pentateuch. 

§  6.    The   Testimony  as  to  the  Literary  Compo- 
sition OF  THE  Pentateuch. 

§  7.    Are  there  Post-Mosaic  Elements  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch. 


18.    The  Value  of  this  Testimony. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  TO 
ITSELF. 

BY    PROFESSOR     GEORGE     H.     SCHODDE.,     PH.D.,     CAPITAL    UNIVERSITY, 
COLUMBUS,    OHIO. 

§  I.  Often  distinctions  are  made  where  no 
differences  exist,  but  sometimes  differences  exist 
where  no  distinction  is  made.  In  the  very  outset 
it  is  important  to  keep  apart  two  questions  that 
are  not  seldom  confused.  It  is  one  thing  to  be 
the  recipient  of  a  revelation  ;  it  is  another  thing  to 
write  down  such  a  revelation.  It  is  one  thing  to 
be  the  medium  through  whom  God  has  spoken  to 
his  people;  it  is  quite  another  thing  to  be  the 
literary  authors  of  the  works  in  which  these  sacred 
oracles  are  recorded  and  deposited  for  future 
generations.  The  Bible  mentions  many  men  of 
God  as  the  recipients  of  revelations  from  whom 
we  have  not  one  word  in  writing.  The  Lord  spake 
to  Abraham  and  to  Isaac  and  to  Jacob,  and  yet 
we  have  no  evidence  that  these  patriarchs  them- 
selves ever  recorded  a  single  word  of  such  revela- 
tions. No  prophets  in  Israel  were  in  more  con- 
stant or  intimate  communion  with  Jehovah  than 
Elijah  and  Elisha,  and  yet  we  have  not  a  particle 
of  testimony  that  they  ever  themselves  wrote 
down  a  word  spoken  to  them  by  the  Lord.  Christ 
himself  wrote  not  a  syllable  of  the  New  Testament 
books.    In  this  way  the  literary  authorship  of  any 


144  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

book  of  the  Bible,  and  also  of  the  Pentateuch,  is  a 
problem  quite  distinct  and  different  from  the  ques- 
tion as  to  the  recipient  of  the  revelation  contained 
in  the  book.  The  whole  Pentateuch  may  be  Mo- 
saic, and  yet  Moses  need  not,  sua  viamL,  have  writ- 
ten a  single  word  in  it,  nor  the  Pentateuch,  in  its 
present  shape,  date  from  his  age.  Christ's  testi- 
mony of  himself  is  doubtless  authentic.  Yet  the 
evangelists  did  not  compile  them  until  one  or 
even  two  generations  after  the  Saviour's  death. 

§  2.  The  direct  evidence  of  the  Pentateuch  as 
to  its  literary  author  is  very  meagre.  The  pas- 
sages in  which  Moses  is  said  to  have  written  any 
portion  of  the  words  spoken  to  him  by  the  Lord 
are  much  fewer  than  is  generally  supposed  to  be 
the  case.  The  only  passages  where  this  is  said  of 
him  are  Ex.  xvii :  14;  Ex.  xxiv  :  4  (cf.  v.  7) ;  Ex. 
xxxiv  :  28;  Num.  xxxiii  :  2  (Num.  xvii  :  17  sqq.); 
Deut.  xxxi :  9,  24  (cf.  v.  26,  as  also  Deut.  xvii :  18 ; 
xxviii  :  58,  61 ;  xxix  :  19,  20,  26;  xxx  :  10).  Of 
these  Ex.  xxxiv  :  28  refers  only  to  the  writing  of 
the  ten  commandments  upon  the  two  tables ;  Num. 
xvii :  17  (xvii :  2  in  the  English)  refers  only  to  the 
writing  on  rods ;  Num.  xxxiii  :  2  only  to  the  list 
of  desert  stations,  and  these  passages  thus  furnish 
their  own  limitation.  In  Ex.  xxiv  :  4  we  are  told 
that  Moses  wrote  "  all  the  words  of  the  Lord," 
and  in  v.  7  these  ''  words  "  are  identified  with  "  the 
book  of  the  covenant,"  which  he  read  to  the  peo- 
ple and  to  which  the  audience  promised  obedience. 
Li  the  nature  of  the  case  this  cannot  refer  to  the 
whole  Pentateuch,  for  the  simple  reason  that  it 


Pentateuchal  Testimony.  145 

could  not  have  existed  at  that  time.  It  refers  to 
a  particular  set  of  laws  given  in  the  chapters 
preceding  the  xxivth.  Hengstenberg,  the  most 
determined  advocate  of  the  Mosaic  authorship 
{Beitrdge^  II.  p.  468,  edition  of  1836),  considers 
this  book  of  the  covenant  to  be  composed  of  c. 
XX.  2-14,  and  c.  xxi.  to  c.  23.  There  are  then  left 
only  the  two  most  difificult  but  also  most  promising 
passages,  namely,  Ex.  xvii :  14  and  Deut.  xxxi  :  9 
and  24.  In  the  former  passage  we  read  that  the 
Lord  commanded  Moses  to  ^' write  this  for  a 
memorial  in  tJie  book."  Both  the  A.  V.  and  the 
R.  V.  translate  *'  in  a  book,"  as  also  does  Luther. 
The  Hebrew,  however,  has  the  article  ''  the  "  before 
^'  book,"  and  this  passage  has  been  claimed  in  favor 
of  the  Mosaic  as  the  literary  authorship  of  the 
whole  Pentateuch.  This  has  been  done  by  such  a 
representative  man  as  Hengstenberg  {Bcitragc^Wl. 
p.  150  sqq.),  but  is  discarded  by  other  conservative 
scholars,  such  as  Keil  (Introduction  to  O.  T.  §  33). 
Careful  exegesis  must  sanction  this  latter  course. 
The  existence  of  the  article  in  itself  is  doubtful. 
That  the  text  was  read  with  the  article  by  the 
Massoretes  is  easily  understood  from  their  stand- 
point on  the  Mosaic  authorship.  But  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  the  oldest  text-critical  authority  for  the 
O.  T.  text,  has  no  article,  reading  only  f/s"  ^i/3Xiov\ 
and  as  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  make  a  text- 
critical  digest  of  this  passage,  the  absence  of  the 
article  in  the  Sixtina  or  regular  edition  of  the 
LXX.  is  sustained  by  the  authorities.  Further, 
even  if  the  article  were  original,  its  existence  would 


146  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

not  justify  the  translation  of  it  as  a  demonstrative 
with  reference  to  the  whole  Pentateuch.  The  Old 
Testament  constantly  speaks  of  writing  in  the 
book,  with  reference  to  the  immediate  document 
under  consideration.  Cf.  Num.  v  :  23  ;  i  Sam. 
X  :  25  ;  Jer.  xxxii :  10 ;  Job  xix  :  23  ;  Gesen.  §  109  ; 
3  Anm.  I,  b ;  Ewald,  §  277a  ;  Dillm.  Com.  ad  loc. 
Then,  in  the  third  place,  neither  the  time,  there 
having  as  yet  no  covenant  relation  been  estab- 
lished between  Jehovah  and  Israel,  nor  the  char- 
acter of  the  matter  to  be  written,  permit  us  to 
draw  a  conclusion  here  with  reference  to  the  five 
books  as  a  whole.  A  "  book  "  in  the  Hebrew  is  a 
written  document  of  any  kind  or  length.  The 
Israelites  then  had  other  "  books  "  besides  their 
law  book.  Cf.  Num.  xxi :  14.  What  is  meant  here 
is  doubtless  that  Moses  wrote  or  caused  to  be 
written  the  affair  of  Amalek,  and  that  this  docu- 
ment was  incorporated  into  the  Pentateuch.  In 
Deut.xxxi :  9  and  24  matters  seem  to  be  more  sat- 
isfactory. In  the  first  passage  it  is  said  that  Moses 
"wrote  this  law;"  in  the  second  that  he '' made 
an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book." 
What  is  meant  by  "this  law?"  Is  it  the  whole 
Pentateuch  ?  Of  the  law  here  meant  it  is  said  in 
V.  10  sqq.  that  every  seven  years,  at  the  feast  of 
the  tabernacle  it  shall  be  read  before  all  Israel,  in 
order  to  instruct  the  people  in  their  duties  toward 
Jehovah.  It  must  accordin;5ly  have  been  a  docu- 
ment of  such  a  kind  that  it  could  be  read  on  such 
an  occasion ;  and,  secondly,  it  must  have  been 
formulated  in  such  a  way  as  to  impress  their  duties 


Ptenateuchal  Testimony.  147 

upon  the  children  of  Israel.  Both  these  features 
point  not  to  the  whole  Pentateuch  as  such,  but  to 
the  law  in  the  exhortatory  form  in  which  it  is  pre- 
sented in  Deuteronomy.  A  fair  explanation  here 
seems  to  compel  us  to  restrict  "this  law"  in  this 
connection  to  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  doubt- 
less to  the  strictly  legal  second  half.  The  Penta- 
teuch is  only  about  one-half  a  compend  of  the 
duties  for  Israel ;  the  other  half  is  histor>^  And 
its  length  would  have  precluded  compliance  here. 
Even  Hengstenberg  (1.  c.  p.  i6o)  must  admit  this. 
He  supposes  that  ''the  spiritual  leaders  had  the 
right  of  deciding  those  portions  which,  as  the  ker- 
nel of  the  whole,  should  be  read  as  the  law  book 
in  the  narrow  sense  of  the  word,  and  that  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  the  majority  of  these  sections 
would  be  taken  from  Deuteronomy."  Of  course 
this  is  merely  a  flimsy  makeshift.  We  do  not  then 
think  that  we  have  any  direct  testimony  of  the 
Pentateuch  to  prove  that  Moses  himself  wrote  or 
caused  to  be  written  the  whole  of  the  five  books. 
He  is  declared  to  be  the  writer  of  portions  of  Ex- 
odus and  Numbers,  and  of  the  legal  portion  and  pos- 
sibly the  whole  of  Deuteronomy.  Whether  he  also 
wrote  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  larger  por- 
tions thereof,  is  not  directly  stated.  Our  sources 
of  information  simply  furnish  no  definite  evidence 
on  this  point.  As  regards  the  literary  author  of 
the  book  of  Genesis  the  sources  are  also  silent.  In- 
direct evidence,  however,  make  two  things  sure: 
First,  the  author  is  the  same  as  the  writer  of  the 
following  books.     Externally  and  internally  Gen- 


148  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

esis  is  the  foundation  of  these  books.  It  is  un- 
necessary to  dwell  on  this  since  it  is  acknowl- 
edged by  both  conservative  and  advanced  scholar- 
ship. Secondly,  the  author  was  a  man  well  ac- 
quainted with  Egyptian  affairs,  a  feature  that 
becomes  more  evident  as  we  advance  into  Exodus. 
§  3.  It  is  deeply  significant,  over  against  the 
somewhat  scant  and  disappointing  testimony  in 
reference  to  the  writer  of  the  Pentateuch,  when 
we  ask  for  the  evidences  as  to  the  person  who 
Avas  chosen  of  God  to  promulgate  these  revela- 
tions, that  the  testimony  is  simply  overwhelm- 
ing. Moses  may  or  may  not  have  written  these 
books,  yet  the  contents  of  the  last  four,  at  least  in 
their  great  bulk,  claim  to  have  been  given  by  God 
to  Moses.  Bleek  (Introduction  to  the  O.  T.  §  1 1)" 
correctly  says  :  "  On  this  point  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  laws  as  we  find  them  in  these 
books  all  claim  to  be  Mosaic  in  origin."  Many 
passages  testify  to  this,  of  which  the  following  are 
the  principal  ones :  Ex.  iii,  iv,  sqq. ;  Ex.  xv  ;  Ex. 
XX  ;  Ex.  xxxiv  ;  Ex.  xxv,  sqq. ;  Ex.  xxxi ;  Ex. 
xxxiv  sq. ;  Lev.  i :  i  ;  iv  :  I  ;  vi :  i,  12,  17  ;  vii :  22, 
28  ;  viii :  I  ;  (x  :  8)  ;  xi :  i  ;  xii :  i  ;  xiii :  i  ;  xiv  :  i, 
33  ;  xv  :  I  ;  xvi  :  i  ;  xvii  :  i  ;  xviii  :  i  ;  xix  :  i 
(xix  :  37);  XX  :  i  ;  xxi  :  i,  16;  xxii  :  I,  17,  26; 
xxiii  :  I,  23,  26,  33  ;  xxiv  :  I  ;  xxv  :  i  (xxvi  :  3) ; 
xxvii  :  I,  34  (a  general  summary);  Num.  i  :  i; 
ii:i;  iii :  5,  40  (42);  iv  :  i,  17,  21,  40;  v  :  i,  5,  11  ; 
vi:i,22;  vii:4,  11;  viii:  1,5,  23;  ix:i,23;  x:i; 
xi  :  16,  23,  25  ;  xii :  5  sqq.,  1 1, 14;  xiii  :  2  ;  xiv  :  20 
(39);  XV  :  I,  17,  35  ;   xvi :  20;   xvii :  i,  10;  xviii :  i, 


Pentateuchal  Testimony,  149 

8   (20),  25  ;    xix  :  I  ;    xx  :  7,  12,  23;     xxv  :  10,  16; 
xxvi  :  I,  52 ;  xxvii  :  6,  12,  18  ;    xxviii  :  i  ;  xxx  :  i  ; 
xxxi :  I,  25  ;  xxxii :  10  ;  xxxiii :  50 ;    xxxiv  :  i,  16  ; 
XXXV  :  I  ;  xxxvi  :  13  (a  general  summary);  Deut. 
i :  I  (title  of  whole  book).     But  of  course  it  would 
be  unfair  to  conclude,  even  from  this  mass  of  evi- 
dence, that  Moses  must  be  regarded  as  the  medi- 
um through  whom  Jehovah  revealed  every  word 
and   syllable  that  we  have  then    in  our  present 
Pentateuch.      From    these    statements   alone  we 
have,  for  instance,  no  right  to  claim  that  the  book 
of  Genesis  is  his  work.    That  book  directly  states 
that   certain   of  the   patriarchs  were   in  constant 
communion  with    God,  and    received    from    him 
commands  and   promises.     But  who  it  was  that 
preserved  these  commands  and  promises  and  col- 
lected and  arranged  them  in  their  present  form  in 
Genesis  is  nowhere  stated  in   so  many  words.     If 
Moses  did  this  or  caused  it  to  be  done  we  must 
base  our  acceptance  of  this  thesis  on  indirect  and 
not  on  direct  evidence.     Again,  it   is  seen  by  a 
reference  to  the  list  above  that  Moses  is  nowhere 
declared  to  be  the  recipient  of  the  whole  Penta- 
teuch as  such,  but,  as  was  the  case  in  the  passages 
which  spoke  of  Moses  writing  parts  of  the  law, 
of  certain  parts   or  portions  of   the    live    books. 
And  here  the  question  in  each  case  arises,  whether 
the  testimony  to  the  Mosaic    source  that  heads 
each  section  covers  all  the  ground,  until  the  same 
declaration  is  made  of  a  new  section.     In  a  num- 
ber, probably  in   many  instances,  this  is  doubtless 
the  intention  ;  in  other  cases  this  is  not  so  certain. 


150  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

and  in  some  quite  doubtful.  The  limitation  and 
extent  of  such  warrants  are  not  clear  in  every 
case.  But  so  much  is  certain  beyond  a  doubt,  that 
these  claims,  repeated  sometimes  in  a  single  chap- 
ter two  and  three  times,  fully  justify  the  assertion 
that  the  great  bulk  and  mass  of  the  Pentateuch, 
from  that  period  on  when  Moses  first  was  called 
to  his  mission,  Ex.  iii :  2  sqq.,  both  the  legal  portion 
and  also  the  historical  narratives,  claim  to  be  the 
revelation  of  Jehovah  given  to  his  servant  Moses. 
This  of  course  still  leaves  open  the  critical  and 
literary  question  as  to  whether  into  this  Mosaic 
bulk  or  mass  foreign  elements  were  introduced 
then  or  later,  and  also  the  historical  question  as  to 
the  time  and  manner  in  which  these  Mosaic  rev- 
elations were  written,  collected,  or  received  their 
present  shape,  and  the  changes,  if  any,  which  they 
may  have  undergone  in  this  process.  But  the 
central  and  most  important  fact  remains  fixed 
and  firm,  that  the  direct  evidences  of  the  Penta- 
teuch are  overwhelming  in  vindicating  to  the 
great  lawgiver  of  Israel,  the  reception  of  the  great 
bulk  of  the  last  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 
These  books  claim  in  essence  and  substance  to  be 
Mosaic.  So  far  the  direct  testimony  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch itself,  cautiously  used,  justifies  us  in  going; 
and  naturally  this  testimony  does  not  exclude  the 
Mosaic  character  also  of  the  rest  of  these  books 
or  of  the  whole  Pentateuch.  There  simply  is  no 
direct  internal  testimony  on  the  problem  in  this 
wide  range.  If  it  can  be  proved  in  this  range  at 
all,  the  testimony  must  be  drawn  from  other 
sources. 


Pentateuchal  Testimony.  151 

§  4.  The  indirect  evidence  on  this  point  is  also 
abundant.  We  will  be  able  to  give  it  only  in  a 
few  of  its  leading  features.  The  Pentateuch  con- 
tains a  large  number  of  laws  and  narrates  numer- 
ous events  which  can  be  understood  only  from  the 
historical  background  of  the  sojourn  and  journey 
of  the  children  of  Israel  through  the  desert  under 
the  leadership  of  Moses.  From  the  standpoint  of 
the  advanced  critics  these  laws  and  events  are 
glaring  anachronisms,  and  could  be  explained 
only  as  bold  fraiidcs  picB.  Bleek,  in  his  Intro- 
duction, §  12,  has  emphasized  the  importance  of 
this  argument,  and  he  is  correct  in  saying  that  "  it 
would  be  difficult  to  overthrow  it."  Among  these 
laws  that  by  their  very  character  and  surround- 
ings indirectly  testify  to  a  Mosaic  source  is  the 
whole  group  with  which  the  book  of  Leviticus 
begins,  extending  to  chapter  vii,  cf.  particularly 
4,  12  and  21,  where  it  is  commanded  that  certain 
portions  of  the  sacrifices  shall  be  carried  "  forth 
without  the  camp."  This  shows  that  the  whole 
law  to  which  these  verses  belong  was  given  in  the 
desert.  Again,  in  i :  5,  7,  1 1  ;  ii :  2,  10;  iii :  2,  5, 
13;  vi:  2,7,  9;  xi:  13,  18;  vii:  10,  31,  33»  34,  Aaron 
and  his  sons  are  mentioned  as  the  priests  who  shall 
perform  these  sacrifices  ;  which  again  points  to  the 
Mosaic  era.  The  law  of  the  great  day  of  atone- 
ment given  in  Lev.  xvi.  is  based  on  a  similar  his- 
torical status.  Cf.  vv.  10,  21,22,  26-28.  The 
same  is  the  case  in  Lev.  chaps,  xiii  and  xiv,  con- 
taining the  law  on  leprosy.  Cf.  xiii:  46;  xiv:  2, 
3,  8  (33-53).      In  the  ninth  chapter  of  Numbers 


152  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

we  have  the  same  indirect  evidence.  These  com- 
mands can  be  understood  only  as  having  been 
given  when  Israel  lived  in  tents,  and  when  Aaron 
and  his  son  Eleazar  were  their  priests.  Cf.  vv. 
3,  4,  7,  9,  14.  Good  evidence  in  this  respect  is 
furnished  also  by  Lev.  xvii.  Cf.  vv.  3,  4,  5,  6,  9. 
This  chapter  would  be  meaningless  if  given  any 
later  date.  Indeed  the  whole  section  from  Lev. 
c.  xi  to  c.  xvi  presupposes  the  desert  journey  of 
Israel  as  its  historical  background. 

Then  there  are  other  laws  which,  if  not  in  their 
own  character  indicative  of  the  Mosaic  age,  yet  in 
the  occasion  which  caused  their  promulgation 
connect  with  that  age  and  can  be  rationally  and 
reasonably  understood  only  from  this  point  of 
view.  Thus  the  law  on  the  great  day  of  atone- 
ment (Lev.  xvi)  is  based  upon  the  historical  events 
recorded  in  Lev.  x:  i  sqq.,  in  which  the  death  of 
Aaron's  two  sons,  Nabad  and  Abihu,  is  recorded. 
Cf.  Lev.  xvi:  i.  Then  the  whole  section,  Ex. 
XXV  to  xxxi,  in  which  the  command  concerning 
the  erection  of  the  tabernacle  and  the  account  of 
this  erection  are  given  in  detail,  are  intelligible 
only  from  a  Mosaic  era.  The  wonderful  hand- 
springs made  by  some  modern  critics  who  regard 
this  description  as  an  ex  post  facto  concern  and 
as  an  imaginary  picture  transferred  into  the  Mo- 
saic age  after  the  model  of  Solomon's  temple, 
are  interesting  psychologically  and  theologically, 
but  are  based  on  eisegesis  and  not  on  exegesis. 
This  inversion  of  history  cannot  possibly  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  office  and  work  of  the  priest  there 


Pentateuchal  Testimony.  153 

described.  Cf.  xxvii :  21  ;  xxviii :  4,  12,  41,  43; 
xxix:  4,  5  ;  xxx :  7,  10,  19,  30.  In  Num.  x :  1-8,  in 
which  the  method  of  caUing  together  the  congre- 
gation is  described,  we  have  again  the  Mosaic  age 
presupposed.  The  same  is  true  of  Num.  i :  i  sqq., 
with  its  statistics  ;  also  ch.  ii,  containing  the  de- 
scription of  the  arrangernent  of  the  people's  camp 
in  the  wilderness ;  as  also  ch.  iv,  with  its  regula- 
tions concerning  the  services  of  the  Levites  in  the 
camp.  It  is  further  highly  probable  that  the 
Mosaic  age  is  the  historical  background  of  the  three 
songs  found  in  Num.  xxi.  Negatively  applied,  this^ 
indirect  evidence  argues  also  that  in  many  other 
cases,  where  it  cannot  positively  be  shown  that 
the  laws  or  the  history  proceed  from  the  premises 
of  a  Mosaic  age,  they  contain  no  evidences  to 
the  contrary.  As  far  as  indirect  evidence  is  con- 
cerned their  testimony  at  most  is  non-committal. 
(Cf.  also  Bleek,  Introduction,  §  1 1-17.)  The  direct 
and  the  indirect  evidence  of  the  Pentateuch  con- 
cerning itself  may  then  be  summed  up  in  the  fol- 
lowing proposition:  Directly  it  is  claimed  that  the 
great  bulk  of  the  last  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch 
are  Mosaic  in  the  sense  that  they  are  revelations 
of  God  to  Moses,  and  portions  of  ihem  are  Mosaic 
in  the  sense  that  Moses  himself  wrote  these  or 
caused  them  to  be  written.  Indirectly  the  testi- 
mony points  to  the  author  of  the  last  four  books 
as  also  the  author  of  the  first,  as  also  that  a  large 
number  of  the  laws  and  much  of  the  history  in 
these  four  books  presuppose  the  Mosaic  age. 
Whether  these  conclusions  are  applicable  to  the 


154  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

whole  and  entire  Pentateuch  or  not,  or  whether 
these  five  books  contain  also  direct  or  indirect  evi- 
dence of  post-Mosaic  elements  can  be  discussed 
only  later,  after  it  has  been  determined  what  the 
internal  character  of  these  books  is. 

§  5.  What  is  the  testimony  of  the  Pentateuch  con- 
cerning itself,  both  in  regard  to  the  substance  and 
matter  it  brings,  as  also  in  regard  to  the  books  as 
a  literary  composition?  In  regard  to  the  first 
point  the  evidence  is  overwhelming  that  these  five 
books  claim  to  be  a  revelation  and  the  history  of 
a  revelation.  In  nearly  all  the  passages  which 
have  been  cited  in  a  previous  paragraph  to  prove 
that  Moses  was  the  medium  through  whom  these 
laws  were  promulgated,  there  is  found  also  the 
statement  that  he  received  them  from  the  Lord — 
in  other  words,  that  they  were  a  revelation  from 
Jehovah.  The  scheme  and  underlying  principles 
of  Pentateuchal  revelation  and  history  are  quite 
simple  and  certainly  plain  from  the  abundance  of 
repetitions  and  reiterations  in  the  pages  of  the 
work.  The  Pentateuch  proceeds  from  the  premises 
that  the  fall  of  man  has  seriously  interfered  with 
God's  plans  for  man's  welfare,  and  that  God's 
■providential  guidance  of  man  is  specially  directed 
toward  his  restoration  and  re-establishment.  The 
efforts  to  effect  this  end  through  mankind  as  a 
class,  through  man's  sins,  prove  to  be  abortive. 
God  accordingly  chooses  from  among  the  peoples 
of  the  earth  one  family,  that  of  Abraham,  and 
later  one  nation,  that  of  the  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham, and  enters  into  a  special  covenant  with  them 


Pentateuchal  Testimony.  155 

in  order  to  accomplish  his  great  ends  in  mankind. 
He  purposes  to  prepare  man  for  salvation  just  as 
he  prepares  salvation  for  man,  and  when  the  full- 
ness of  time  should  have  come,  then  the  kingdom 
of  God  would  be  consummated  among  the  children 
of  men.  The  relation  of  Jehovah  to  Israel  and 
his  special  guidance  of  their  destinies  was  thus 
primarily  to  be  an  educational  process,  a  steady 
and  constant  growth  toward  certain  ends.  Two 
features  are  thus  prominent  in  this  process — first, 
the  children  of  Israel  are  under  the  special  guid- 
ance and  direction  of  God,  so  that  in  their  histori- 
cal development  factors  and  agencies  could  be  ex- 
pected to  be  operative  which  were  not  to  be  found 
in  the  history  of  any  other  peoples  ;  and,  secondly, 
as  this  special  guidance  of  God  had  a  special  aim 
in  view,  a  special  ideal  to  attain,  the  means  and 
measures  adopted  to  attain  this  aim  and  to  realize 
this  ideal  must  look  to  the  future  as  well  as  the 
present.  The  very  nature  of  the  theocratic  charac- 
ter of  Israel's  history  demands  that  laws,  command- 
ments and  injunctions  should  be  given  which  re- 
ferred to  such  important  future  stages  of  Israel's 
development,  which  they  must  pass  through  in 
order  to  attain  the  ultimate  object  which  was  the 
aim  of  their  national  existence.  These  principles 
have  an  important  bearing  on  the  proper  under- 
standing of  the  Pentateuchal  problem.  They  first 
show  that  in  the  nature  of  the  case  the  historical 
development  and  the  religion  of  Israel  must  be 
one  that  is  stii  generis.  The  whole  Pentateuch 
goes  out  from  this  supposition.     Any  historical 


156  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

scheme  that  finds  in  Israel's  development  only  the 
same  factors,  the  same  agencies,  the  same  forces 
that  are  found  in  the  histories  of  other  Oriental 
nations,  runs  counter  to  the  very  basal  idea  of  the 
whole  Pentateuchal  development.  When  there- 
fore Kuenen,  in  his  De  Godsdienst,  p.  5  sqq.,  says 
that  he  proceeds  from  the  standpoint  that  Israel's 
religion  is  the  same  in  kind  with  the  religions  of 
other  peoples,  he  and  his  ideas  of  Israel's  history 
directly  contradict  the  central  thought  of  the 
Pentateuch.  The  other  principle  is  equally  im- 
portant. It  is  the  quasi-prophetic  element  in 
Israel's  law.  It  signifies  not  only  that  in  case  a 
law  in  the  Pentateuch  does  not  find  its  application 
in  the  Mosaic  period,  that  eo  ipso  this  law  does  not 
argue  a  post-Mosaic  origin  (although  it  may  be 
such  for  other  reasons),  but  it  shows  also  that  the 
principle  which  consciously  or  unconsciously  un- 
derlies so  much  of  modern  Old  Testament  research, 
namely,  that  these  laws  grew  out  of  the  history  of 
Israel  and  that  none  were  made  until  the  exigen- 
cies of  the  times  demanded  them,  is  fundament- 
ally incorrect.  To  a  great  measure  the  Mosaic 
codes  form  an  ideal  scheme  the  realization  of 
which  shall  be  a  matter  of  future  times.  This  is 
evident  from  direct  testimony  whenever  directions 
are  given  for  the  time  when  Israel  shall  possess 
Canaan.  Lev.  cc.  15  and  16  are  instructive  in  this 
regard  and  may  serve  as  an  example.  Here  cer- 
tain regulations  are  made  for  the  treatment  of 
leprosy  during  the  stay  in  the  desert,  to  which 
are  at  once  joined  others  that  are  to  be  put  into 


Pentateuch AL  Testimony.  157 

force  when  Palestine  shall  be  theirs.  The  appli- 
cation of  the  false  principle  in  this  regard  to  the 
subjects  of  Old  Testament  Isagogics,  is  bad 
enough,  but  its  use  in  biblical  theology  is  ten 
times  worse.  These  statements  will  make  it  plain 
also  why  the  measure  to  which  the  law  was  put 
into  force  at  any  certain  period  of  Israel's  history 
is  not  a  fair  or  correct  index  of  the  number  of 
laws  that  had  then  official  recognition.  The 
Christian  Church,  with  its  many  divisions,  corre- 
sponds but  poorly  to  the  present  day  to  the  ideals 
of  Christian  brotherhood  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  actual  status  of  a  people  is  never  up  to  the 
ideals  aimed  at  by  the  laws  of  the  land.  The 
argumcnttmi  ex  silcntio  is  at  best  a  negative  argu- 
rnent,  and  alone  and  unsupported  allows  of  no 
positive  conclusions.  The  finding  of  Deuter- 
onomy in  the  days  of  Josiah,  even  on  the  suppo- 
sition of  its  earlier  acceptance  as  divine  and  as 
authority,  is  no  more  an  historical  anomaly  than 
we  would  have  a  right  to  consider  Luther's  redis- 
covery of  the  central  doctrine  of  Christianity — jus- 
tification by  faith  alone — in  the  days  of  the  Refor- 
mation. The  principles  maintained  in  this  para- 
graph so  far  are  based  upon  the  whole  Pentateuch 
as  such,  rather  than  upon  single  passages  only. 
The  writer  has  treated  the  subject  in  extenso 
in  the  Bibliothcca  Sacra,  July,  1885. 

But  the  Pentateuch  claims  to  be  not  only  a 
revelation  but  also  the  history  of  a  revelation. 
That  some  of  its  contents  is  history  not  even  the 
most  radical  critics  deny.      The  fact  that  no  two 


153  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

can  agree  as  to  where  history  ends  and  myth  be- 
gins is  in  itself  evidence  that  it  nowhere  makes 
this  distinction  itself,  but  if  any  part  or  portion  of 
it  is  pronounced  unhistoric,  it  must  be  done 
for  other  reasons.  Wellhausen  {Prolegomena)  ac- 
cepts as  historical  the  story  of  Israel  in  Egypt ; 
Stade  {Geschichte  Israels)  sneers  contemptuously 
at  such  credulity.  The  Pentateuch  itself  nowhere 
gives  any  hint  that  what  it  says  of  the  patriarchs 
and  the  early  records  of  mankind  is  in  the  slight- 
est degree  less  historically  true  than  are  its  ac- 
counts of  Moses,  the  Egyptian  period,  the  journey 
in  the  desert,  and  the  capture  of  the  land  west  of 
the  Jordan.  Of  course  positively  there  is  no 
thetical  statement  to  this  effect  in  the  Pentateuch. 
The  matters  there  recorded  are  recorded  simply 
as  facts,  without  any  apologetic  undercurrent  of 
thought  looking  to  any  skepticism  in  this  matter. 
The  indirect  evidence  on  this  point  is  extensive 
and  has  been  variously  formulated  and  classified. 
We  draw  attention  to  only  two  features.  The  first 
is  the  absolute  agreement  with  all  that  is  known 
of  Egyptian  history  and  civilization — an  argument 
that  has  recently  been  remarkably  strengthened 
through  the  discoveries  of  M.  Naville  of  some  Exo- 
dus cities  in  Lower  Egypt.  Cf.  on  the  whole  mat- 
ter the  two  books  of  Professor  Eber's  ''  Egypten 
7uid  die  FiXnf  Bucher  Moses!'  and  "  Durch  Gosen 
zum  Sinaiy  Another  noteworthy  feature  point- 
ing to  the  historical  character  of  these  books  is 
the  naturalness  with  which  their  national  heroes 
are  portrayed.      Their  faults  and  failures  as  well 


Pentateuchal  Testimony.  159 

as  their  virtues  are  plainly  recorded,  and  these  arc 
faults  which  appear  such  not  only  to  us,  but  also 
to  those  who  recorded  them. 

§  6.  Concerning  the  Pentateuch  as  a  literary 
work  there  is  but  little  direct  testimony.  But  that 
the  author  did  not  simply  mechanically  record 
revelations  directly  given,  but  based  at  least  part 
of  his  w^ork  on  other  literary  documents,  is  plainly 
enough  stated.  In  Num.  xxi :  14,  a  "  Book  of  the 
Wars  of  the  Lord  "  is  expressly  quoted.  The  book 
of  Genesis  and  everything  that  the  author  could 
not  know  himself  as  an  eye  and  ear  witness  could 
be  historically  accurate  only  if  the  statements  are 
based  on  older  and  reliable  records.  Even  if  the 
dogmatic  teachings  of  Genesis  concerning  the 
creation,  the  fall,  the  covenant,  etc.,  are  the  direct 
revelation  from  God,  they  were  not  such  in  Moses* 
day,  but  had  been  given  and  were  known  to  the 
patriarchs.  When  the  Pentateuch  was  written, 
they  too  doubtless  existed  recorded  in  writing, 
from  which  a  knowledge  of  them  w^as  drawn.  The 
same  is  doubtless  true,  as  far  as  the  writing  is  con- 
cerned, of  what  is  simply  history,  chronology, 
genealogies,  etc.  The  inspiration  of  the  Penta- 
teuch certainly  does  not  consist  in  this,  that  the 
author  received  all  this  information  from  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  something  entirely  unknown  to  him  be- 
fore, but  rather  in  directing  him  to  make  the  cor- 
rect use  of  the  means  of  information  at  his  com- 
mand. This  method  in  the  composition  of  a  bib- 
lical book  is  well  illustrated  by  the  parallel  cases 
of  Kings  and  Chronicles,  where  the  sources  of  in- 


160  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

formation  are  given  with  great  frequency.  From 
considerations  of  this  kind  it  would  seem  that  a 
"  documentary  theory  "  of  some  sort,  at  least  in 
reference  to  the  book  of  Genesis,  would  not  only 
be  allowable  but  even  a  necessity.  Whether  the 
documentary  theory  as  is  now  generally  accepted 
even  by  those  in  Europe  who  are  regarded  as  con- 
servative scholars,  such  as  Delitzsch,  Strack, 
v.  Orelli,  and  many  others,  is  the  correct  one  is 
quite  another  question.  As  this  subject  has  been 
assigned  as  the  special  topic  for  another  essay  in 
this  series,  it  is  not  to  be  discussed  here.  But  a 
few  words,  in  so  far  as  our  special  subject  is  con- 
cerned, in  regard  to  this  matter  may  not  be  out 
of  place.  The  danger  in  the  documentary  theory 
does  not  lie  in  itper  se.  In  itself  it  is  a  literary 
and  critical  and  not  a  theological  question.  It  is 
simply  the  question  whether  in  the  Pentateuch 
as  now  constituted  we  have  indications  pointing 
to  its  being  a  compilation  from  various  documents 
and  sources.  In  itself  the  question  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  problem  of  Mosaic  authorship  or 
divine  character  of  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch. 
It  must  be  decided  on  its  own  merits.  The  great 
evil  of  modern  Pentateuchal  criticism  does  not  lie 
in  the  analysis  into  documents,  but  in  the  erection 
upon  this  analysis  of  a  superstructure  of  pseudo- 
history  and  religion  that  runs  directly  counter  to 
the  revealed  and  historic  character  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. But  as  little  as  this  analysis  justifies  such 
a  building  of  hay  and  stubble,  just  so  little  does 
the  abuse  of  this  theory  by  advanced  critics  justify 


Pentateuchal  Testimony.  IGl 

conservative  men  in  refusing  to  accept  what  the 
evidences  seem  sufficient  to  warrant.  Even  when 
in  such  an  array  of  reasons  as  DiHmann  gives  at 
the  close  of  his  commentary  of  the  Hexateuch 
(p.  593  sqq.)  in  favor  of  an  analysis,  we  discard  as 
worthless  and  unworthy  such  groundless  ones  as 
the  many  imagined  contradictions,  conflicting 
accounts,  etc.,  there  yet  remains  in  the  pages  of 
the  Pentateuch  sufficient  evidences,  philological 
and  material,  to  make  it  probable  that  as  at  pres- 
ent shaped  the  five  books  are  a  compilation  from 
a  number  of  sources.  Nor  need  such  an  explana- 
tion of  the  literary  character  conflict  in  any  way 
with  the  essentially  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Penta- 
teuch— i.e.,  Mosaic  not  in  the  sense  that  every  word 
of  it  was  written  by  the  lawgiver,  but  in  the  sense 
that  the  laws  were  promulgated  through  him.  It 
becomes  then  an  historical  question  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  these  laws  were  first  written 
down  and  afterward  united  into  one  code.  The 
problem  is  not  unlike  that  would  be  if  in  some 
way  our  four  Gospels  had  been  united  into  one 
account  of  the  life  and  work  of  Christ.  All  that 
is  necessary  in  the  purely  literary  study  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  not  to  go  any  further  than  the  facts 
in  the  case  justify  us  in  doing.  No  genuine 
scholar  should  be  ashamed  to  answer  7ion  liquet 
when  facts  tell  him  to  stop. 

§  7.  Now  we  will  be  prepared  to  discuss  the 
question  whether  the  Pentateuch  contains  any- 
thing that  is  post-Mosaic.  This  has  been  the  rock 
of  offense  in  the  Pentateuch  from  the  beginning, 


163  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

and  the  first  doubts  concerning  the  traditional 
views  of  the  church  and  synagogue  proceeded 
from  the  claim  that  these  books  contained  a  large 
number  of  anachronisms  which  could  not  be  ex- 
plained or  understood  if  Moses  had  written  them. 
These  have  been  formulated  and  catalogued  in 
various  ways,  and  not  always  in  perfect  agreement 
as  to  their  number  and  character.  The  principal 
ones  can  be  found  mentioned  in  almost  any  critical 
work  on  the  Old  Testament  (cf.  Bleek,  Introduc- 
tion, §  i8  sqq. ;  Keil,  Introduction,  §  25  sqq. ; 
Hengstenberg,  Beitrdge,  III.  179-345 — the  fullest 
discussion  from  the  conservative  standpoint ; 
Dillmann,  Commentary  on  Num.,  Deut.,  Joshua- 
p.  594  sqq. — the  most  compact  and  solid  discus- 
sion from  the  other  side).  A  number  of  these 
claims  are  groundless  because  they  proceed  from  a 
false  conception  of  the  character  of  the  Mosaic 
legislation.  This  is  notably  the  case  in  regard  to 
the  law  given  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  kings  in 
Deut.  xvii.  That  kings  should  at  one  time  in  the 
history  of  Israel  be  set  up  over  those  people  was 
designed  of  God.  This  was  one  of  the  promises 
expressly  given  to  the  patriarchs  (Gen.  xvii :  6). 
If  in  giving  the  law  which  should  control  the  his- 
torical development  of  the  people  under  the  cove, 
nant  which  he  had  made  with  them,  Jehovah  gave  a 
law  also  on  that  one  point  which  from  the  beginning 
was  intended  to  be  an  important  factor  in  this  de- 
velopment, it  is  incorrect  to  say  that  such  a  law 
could  proceed  only  from  a  time  when  the  evils 
against  which  it  was  to  operate  actually  existed. 


Pentateuchal  Testimony.  163 

Such  a  method  of  argument  is  essentially  the 
same,  and  outwardly  also  not  dissimilar  to  that 
which  makes  all  predictions  vaticinia  post  eventum. 
Other  passages  claimed  as  post-Mosaic  are  not 
such,  or  at  least  need  not  be  such,  for  other  rea- 
sons. Thus  is  the  case,  e.g.,  in  Gen.  xii :  6  ;  xiii :  7, 
where  the  Canaanites  seem  to  be  spoken  of  as  a 
people  who  formerly  existed  in  Palestine,  but  who 
no  longer  existed  when  these  words  were  written. 
This  interpretation  is  possible  but  not  necessary. 
The  verse  can  be  understood  from  a  Mosaic  stand- 
point when  we  suppose  that  it  was  given  by  the 
lawgiver  to  his  contemporaries  as  explanatory  of 
the  actions  of  the  patriarchs,  and  to  enable  them 
to  understand  the  historical  surroundings  of  the 
time  and  place.  Again,  the  expression  *'  beyond 
the  Jordan,"  used  so  often,  especially  in  Deuter- 
onomy, of  the  East  Jordan  land,  does  not  compel 
the  belief  that  these  books  were  written  on  the 
west  side  of  that  river.  ^^ Eber  ha  Jordan''  is 
the  technical  and  geographical  name  for  the  East 
Jordan  country.  It  was  such  doubtless  in  the 
days  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  (cf.  Hebrews 
from  the  same  root),  and  as  such  was  incorporated 
into  the  Hebrew  language  and  used  in  that  sense 
by  the  Israelites  in  Egypt,  and  brought  back  with 
them  as  a  fixed  fact  of  their  language.  That  in 
the  use  of  this  term  the  etymology  was  no  longer 
thought  of  can  surprise  no  one  who  knows  that 
every  language  under  the  sun  can  furnish  hundreds 
of  similar  cases.  Again  the  Dan  in  Gen.  xiv  :  14 
is   not    certainly  the    Dan  in  Josh,  xix  :  47  ;  Jud. 


164  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

xviii :  29.  There  may  have  been  two  Dans,  as  there 
were  two  Kanas  and  probably  two  Bethsaidas. 
At  any  rate  these  and  similar  passages  furnish  at 
best  only  possible  but  no  certain  grounds  for  ac- 
cepting post-Mosaic  elements  in  the  present  Pen- 
tateuch. 

But  to  deny  entirely  that  such  elements  do 
actually  exist  would  be  going  too  far  in  the  other 
direction.  Some  facts  in  the  Pentateuch  are  too 
decided  on  this  point.  We  do  not  think  that  any 
judicious  scholar  would  claim  the  last  chapter  of 
Deuteronomy  as  Mosaic,  at  least  not  from  v.  5  on, 
in  which  the  death  of  the  lawgiver  is  recorded. 
This  part  was  evidently  added  by  a  later  hand, 
and  from  v.  10  it  would  seem  to  have  been  written 
some  considerable  time  after  Moses'  death.  It 
will  be  noticed  here  that  it  is  nowhere  stated  ex- 
pressly, or  ex  professo,  that  we  here  have  a  differ- 
ent author  from  the  one  who  wrote  the  preceding 
chapters.  The  reason  why  we  must  accept  this 
is  because  internal  evidence  point  to  post-Mosaic 
date.  The  canon  or  rule  then  for  discovering  such 
elements  that  may  not  be  Mosaic  must  be  the  in- 
ternal testimony.  This  is  of  course  not  meant  in 
the  sense  that  this  is  post-Mosaic  simply  because 
it  refers  to  things  later  than  his  day.  Many  of 
the  laws  given  to  Moses  do  the  same,  and  in  the 
nature  of  the  theocracy  and  the  Old  Testament 
covenant  such  laws  were  necessary.  But  it  runs 
counter  to  all  healthy  ideas  of  prophecy  to  think 
that  historical  events  should  be  predicted  and 
then  recorded  as  past.     Prediction  is  indeed   one 


Pentateuchal  Testimony.  165 

of  the  constituent  elements  of  prophecy,  but  it  is 
always  given  as  prediction,  and  its  divine  source 
and  character  are  expressly  indicated  by  this  very 
characteristic.  These  verses  are  post-Mosaic  sim- 
ply because  they  record  not  prophecy  but  post- 
Mosaic  history. 

But  it  is  difficult  to  see,  in  case  such  non- 
Mosaic  verses  were  added  to  the  end  of  the  Mo- 
saic legislation,  not  as  an  appendix  but  as  a  con- 
stituent part  of  the  whole  and  as  its  formal  close, 
why  such  elements  may  not  have  been  introduced 
elsewhere  also.  Of  course  the  existence  of  these 
non-Mosaic  verses  at  the  end  of  the  Pentateuch 
does  not  prove  the  existence  of  verses  of  the 
same  kind  elsewhere.  For  all  that,  every  jot  and 
tittle  of  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch  might  be  Mo- 
saic. All  that  it  proves  is,  that  the  addition  of 
non-Mosaic  elements  was  not  an  impossibility.  If 
such  elements  have  been  introduced  elsewhere 
their  presence  must  be  detected  in  the  same  way 
in  which  they  were  detected  in  Deut.  xxxiv. 

We  have  already  seen  that  of  the  passages  which 
are  generally  quoted  as  indicative  of  a  post- 
Mosaic  origin  many  are  at  best  of  doubtful  value. 
They  do  not  furnish  conclusive  evidence.  We  are, 
however,  unable  to  claim  this  for  all  passages. 
There  are  a  number  of  passages  which  seem  to  the 
writer  can  be  explained  only  on  the  supposition 
that  they  were  written  in  a  period  later  than 
Moses.  We  mention  here  two  examples.  In  Gen. 
xii :  8 ;  xxviiiiiQ;  xxxv:i5,  a  certain  place  is 
called  Bethel,  and  in  one  of  these  passages,  xxviii : 


166  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

19,  it  is  identified  as  the  earlier  Luz.  But  accord- 
ing to  Josh,  xviii :  13,  Luz  was  then  still  the  name 
of  that  place.  Bethel  became  its  name  only  later. 
The  explanation  usually  given  to  set  aside  this 
anachronism  (cf.  Hengstenberg,  Beitrdge,l\l.  200 
sqq.),  which  distinguishes  between  a  city  and  a 
district  of  Bethel,  has  no  ground  whatever  in  the 
statements  of  the  Pentateuch  or  of  Joshua.  A 
second  example  is  Gen.  xxxvi :  31  sqq.,  in  which 
a  list  of  kings  of  Edom  is  given  "before  there 
reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of  Israel." 
Gen.  xvii :  6,  in  which  kings  are  promised  for 
Israel,  cannot  furnish  a  sound  basis  for  making  this 
a  quasi-prophetic  passage.  It  is  in  nowise  a 
parallel  case  with  the  kings,  law  in  Deuteronomy. 
It  is  an  historical  passage  and  presupposes  the  ex- 
istence of  kings  in  Israel.  The  existence  of  these 
and  similar  passages  in  the  Pentateuch  would 
seem  to  prove,  notwithstanding  that  for  the 
great  mass  and  bulk  of  the  contents  a  Mosaic 
origin  is  claimed,  and  the  claim  is  supported  by 
further  reasons,  that  the  collecting  of  these  Mo- 
saic revelations  and  the  final  editing  was  not  ac- 
complished until  a  later  day. 

§  8.  What  is  the  value  of  this  evidence  of  the 
Pentateuch  concerning  itself?  The  testimony  of 
a  witness  is  measured  by  the  amount  of  credence 
given  to  his  words.  Apodictically  no  historical 
point  can  be  proved.  It  is  regarded  as  certain  and 
sure  only  in  the  degree  as  its  evidence  is  considered 
reliable.  The  same  is  the  case  with  regard  to  the 
Pentateuch.     What    divides   scholars  in    this  de- 


Pentateuchal  Testimony.  167 

partment  into  such  antagonistic  camps  is  not 
the  exegesis  of  this  or  that  passage,  but  the 
"standpoint"  of  the  investigators.  The  conser- 
vative scholar  accepts  the  authority  of  the  Penta- 
teuch over  against  canons  and  laws  drawn  from 
philosophical  speculations.  The  advanced  critic, 
on  the  basis  of  his  ideas  concerning  the  nature  of 
religion  in  general  and  revelation  drawn  from 
extra-biblical  sources,  regards  his  deductions  as 
better  testimony  than  the  simple  statements  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  accordingly  interprets  the 
words  of  the  Pentateuch  in  accordance  with  his 
philosophy.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  he  finds 
mythology  in  Genesis  where  others  find  history. 

In  the  nature  of  the  case  no  historical  fact  can 
be  proved  with  mathematical  certainty.  It  is  only 
a  question  of  a  greater  or  less  degree  of  probability. 
Internal  and  external  evidence  must  combine  to 
determine  this  degree  of  probability.  It  is  for 
this  reason  that  we  have  more  confidence  in 
Thucydides  than  in  Herodotus.  For  the  conser- 
vative scholar  the  conviction  that  the  Pentateuch 
is  an  inspired  work  is  a  ground  for  believing  its 
statements  concerning  itself.  This  conviction  of 
inspiration  he  gains  not  by  logical  reasoning  or 
historical  criticism,  but  as  a  testiinojmun  spiritu^ 
sayicti.  He  who  would  by  logic  or  criticism 
prove  the  divine  character  and  inspiration  of  Scrip- 
ture has  not  only  an  Herculean  task,  but  an  im- 
possible task  before  him.  Logic  and  criticism  can 
be  only  subsidiary  aids  in  showing  that  the  ob- 
jections made    to  the    claims   of    inspiration   are 


168  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

groundless.  Another  reason  for  accepting  this 
self-testimony  of  the  Pentateuch  is  its  acceptance 
as  Mosaic  and  divine  by  Christ  and  the  New  Tes- 
tament. A  conservative  scholar  is  convinced  that 
this  authority  is  a  better  ground  for  belief  than 
his  own  theories  and  hypotheses,  in  case  these 
should  clash  with  the  former.  But  in  all  these 
cases  care  must  be  taken  to  know  exactly  what 
these  authorities  testify  to.  Thus,  e.g.,  the  ques- 
tion as  to  the  extent  of  the  New  Testament  testi- 
mony and  what  it  exactly  means  is  one  differently 
answered  by  men  equally  anxious  to  heed  this 
testimony.  Men  are  sometimes  mistaken  in  their 
estimate  of  scriptural  testimony.  In  the  days 
before  the  Reformation  the  church  universal  was 
convinced  of  the  canonicity  of  the  Apocrypha. 
The  Protestant  church,  by  the  exercise  of  its 
rights  of  higher  criticism,  rejected  these  books. 
The  learned  men  of  that  day  were  convinced  that 
the  Bible  taught  the  Ptolemaic  system.  A  closer 
view  in  the  light  of  new  facts  showed  them  that 
they  were  mistaken.  A  matter  of  prime  necessity 
is  then  to  determine  exactly  what  the  evidence  of 
our  witnesses  is,  and  that  evidence  must  be  then  ac- 
cepted by  the  conservative  and  Christian  scholar. 
This  does  not  mean  that  this  evidence  will  always 
be  a  confirmation  of  the  traditional  views  on  mat- 
ters of  historical  and  literary  criticism.  The  old 
is  not  necessarily  true  because  it  is  old  ;  the  new 
not  necessarily  false  because  it  is  new.  In  each 
case  a  conscientious  and  searching,  a  rigid  but  rev- 
erential examination  of  the  facts  must  determine 


Pentateuchal  TestimOxNy.  169-171 

the  matter.  And  of  such  an  examination  the 
Bible  need  have  no  fear,  whose  claims  are  injured 
only  by  dishonest  and  unfair,  not  by  honest  and 
fair  criticism.     Magna  est  Veritas  et  praevalebit. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    HISTORICAL 
BOOKS,    SAVE    CHRONICLES. 

BY  PROFESSOR  WILLIS  J.  BEKCHKR. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

Description  of  the  Books.  These  books  are, 
first,  the  Book  of  Joshua,  recording  the  events 
that  directly  followed  the  death  of  Moses  ;  second, 
the  Books  of  Judges,  Ruth,  and  First  and  Second 
Samuel,  continuing  the  history  till  the  accession 
of  Solomon ;  third,  the  Books  of  Kings,  carrying  it 
forward  to  the  middle  of  the  seventy  years  of  ex- 
ile ;  and  fourth,  the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
with  or  without  Daniel  and  Esther,  treating  of  the 
times  yet  later.  These  books  cover  in  some  shape 
the  whole  time  from  the  alleged  writing  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  the  times  of  Moses  to  the  close  of 
the  events  described  in  the  Old  Testament.  They 
contain,  however,  properly  speaking,  not  the  his- 
tory of  Israel  for  this  period,  but  rather  the  history 
of  a  certain  line  of  providential  dealings  with  Is- 
rael. For  interpreting  their  silences,  especially,  this 
distinction  is  very  important. 

Most  of  them  bear  pretty  distinct  marks  of  hav- 
ing been  prepared  in  part  by  the  process  of  tran- 
scribing selections  from  previously  existing  records. 
Whatever  differences  of  opinion  there  may  be  as 
to  their  date  and  authorship,  no  one  would  dispute 
that  they  approach  more  nearly  to  the  character  of 


174  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

records  contemporaneous  with  the  events  record- 
ed than  do  the  Books  of  Chronicles — that  other 
bibhcal  work  of  history  treating  of  the  same  times. 
It  would  also  be  admitted  that  in  some  instances 
they  are  farther  from  being  contemporaneous 
records  than  are  the  dated  prophetic  books.  If 
there  is  at  any  point  a  conflict  of  testimony  be- 
tween the  books,  these  considerations  have  weight 
in  deciding  which  witness  is  to  be  preferred ;  they 
also  have  weight  as  showing  that  what  may  at  first 
seem  to  be  a  conflict  of  evidence  should  not  be  too 
hastily  interpreted  in  that  way  ;  statements  made 
from  different  points  of  view  may  differ  without 
being  contradictory. 

Kinds  of  Evidence  fotind  in  these  Books.  The 
evidence  to  be  obtained  from  these  books  concern- 
ing the  Pentateuch  is  of  several  different  sorts.  It 
consists  partly  in  the  books  themselves,  regarded 
as  mere  facts,  and  partly  in  the  testimony  given 
by  the  books.  Whether  one  regard  them  as  trust- 
worthy, untrustworthy,  or  of  doubtful  trustworthi- 
ness, it  is  at  least  a  fact  that  the  books  exist ;  that 
they  have  a  certain  linguistic  character  as  com- 
pared with  one  another,  with  the  Pentateuch,  with 
other  Hebrew  writings;  that  they  mention  institu- 
tions and  events  capable  of  being  compared,  as 
matters  of  historical  sequence,  with  those  men- 
tioned in  the  Pentateuch  ;  that  they  contain  state- 
ments, citations,  silences,  concerning  the  Penta- 
teuch and  its  contents.  These  varied  phenomena 
are  existing  facts,  no  matter  what  estimate  one 
puts  upon   the  books  that  contain  them.     They 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  175 

constitute  evidence  of  one  sort,  while  the  state- 
ments directly  made  in  the  books  concerning  the 
Pentateuch  are  evidence  of  another  sort.  Apart 
from  the  question  of  inspiration  the  evidence  from 
the  phenomena  is  of  higher  validity  than  the 
testimony,  provided  one  were  sure  of  correctly 
interpreting  the  phenomena  ;  for  we  are  more 
certain  of  what  we  see  than  of  what  some  one  tells 
us.  But  it  is  also  true  that  there  are  often  dif- 
ferent ways  of  accounting  for  the  same  phenom- 
ena; that  evidence  of  this  kind  often  lacks  in 
explicitness  more  than  enough  to  balance  its  ad- 
vantages in  point  of  directness.  It  follows  from 
this  as  a  fixed  logical  rule,  and  one  of  great  im- 
portance in  the  case  in  hand,  that  among  equally 
consistent  interpretations  of  the  phenomena  con 
tained  in  a  writing,  that  interpretation  is  to  be 
preferred  which  agrees  with  the  declarations  made 
in  the  writing. 

By  a  cross-division  the  evidence  from  these 
books  assumes  at  least  three  different  forms  :  First, 
some  portions  of  the  phenomena  they  present 
and  the  testimony  they  give  bear  directly  on  Pen- 
tateuchal  questions ;  secondly,  they  present  a  cer- 
tain cast  of  Israelitish  history,  and  an  account  of 
Israelitish  institutions,  culture  and  religious  ideas, 
for  some  hundreds  of  years  following  the  times 
when  Moses  is  alleged  to  have  written  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  what  they  say  on  these  points  must 
needs  be  either  consistent  or  inconsistent  with  the 
alleged  fact  that  Moses  established  the  Penta- 
teuchal  institutions  and  described  them  in  writing; 


176  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

thirdly,  these  books  either  confirm  or  weaken  the 
evidence  found  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles  on  the 
one  hand  and  in  the  poetical  and  prophetic  books 
on  the  other. 

Restrictions  of  the  Present  Treatment.  There  is 
a  certain  advantage  in  treating  this  group  of  his- 
torical books  by  themselves  as  a  source  of  evi- 
dence concerning  the  Pentateuch,  for  we  may  thus 
obtain  a  rapid  view  of  the  whole  line  of  historical 
argument ;  but  this  treatment  if  regarded  as  other 
than  merely  preliminary  has  also  great  disadvan- 
tages. It  rules  out  most  of  those  forms  of  the 
evidence  that  depend  on  the  comparing  of  these 
books  with  the  Books  of  Chronicles  and  of  the 
prophets  ;  the  part  so  ruled  out  is  certainly  not 
the  less  important  half  of  the  evidence. 

Further,  much  of  the  evidence  exists  in  the 
form  of  small  items  and  slight  probabilities,  and 
could  only  be  made  available  by  long  processes  of 
induction  entirely  beyond  the  range  of  the  space 
allotted  to  the  present  treatment.  Let  it  be  under- 
stood, then,  that  in  presenting  the  testimony  of 
the  historical  books,  save  Chronicles,  we  are  pre- 
senting only  selections  from  the  whole  body  of  the 
evidence  that  might  be  gathered  in  this  field  ;  the 
effort  will  be  made  to  render  the  parts  presented 
fairly  representative  of  the  whole. 

THE    BOOK   OF    JOSHUA. 

There  is  no  dispute  that  the  book  of  Joshua  in  its 
present  form  substantially  presupposes  the  Penta- 
teuch in  its  present  form.    The  scholars  who  hold 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  177 

that  the  Pentateuch  was  made  by  one  or  more  re- 
dactors from  three  or  more  previous  redactions  of 
previously  existing  writings  are  pretty  well  agreed 
that  Joshua  is  a  part  of  the  same  literary  work, 
made  by  the  same  redactors  from  the  same  previous 
sources  We  need  not  cite  instances  to  prove  that 
Joshua  presupposes  the  Pentateuch,  but  only  to 
call  attention  to  this  and  illustrate  it  so  as  to  en- 
sure its  being  understood.  For  this  it  is  enough 
to  take  such  instances  as  are  at  hand,  with  little 
attempt  at  classification  and  none  at  exhaustive- 
ness. 

Certain  Phenomena  in  the  Book  of  Joshua.  Not 
noticing  as  yet  the  direct  statements  which  the 
Book  of  Joshua  makes  concerning  the  written  law 
of  Moses,  notice  the  way  in  which  it  uses  the  term 
law.  The  word  occurs  nine  times  in  Joshua,  al- 
ways denoting  written  divine  requirement  or  reve- 
lation. But  it  denotes  this  with  three  different 
degrees  of  comprehension.  In  i.  7,  8  ;  viii.  31  ; 
xxii.  5  ;  xxiii.  6,  it  describes  the  whole  of  a  cer- 
tain body  of  legislation  given  by  Moses,  large 
enough  for  the  government  of  the  nation.  Prob- 
ably "  the  book  of  the  law,"  viii.  34,  35,  read  at  a 
national  gathering  after  the  solemnities  of  the 
altar  at  Ebal,  was  the  same,  cf.  Dent.  xxxi.  10-12. 
But  "  the  copy  of  the  law,"  viii.  32,  written  (not 
on  polished  stone  but)  on  the  plaster  of  the  altar, 
and  therefore  not  very  finely  written,  and  ''  all 
the  words  of  the  law,  the  blessing  and  the  curse," 
apparently  read  as  a  part  of  the  service  of  the  oc- 
casion, viii.  34,  can  hardly  have  been  more  than  a 


178  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

short  section  (or  short  sections)  of  the  whole  body 
of  legislation  elsewhere  in  Joshua  called  the  law. 
Further,  in  xxiv.  26,  "  the  book  of  the  law  of 
God"  is  said  to  have  additions  made  to  it  by 
Joshua  ;  the  law  is  not  here  regarded  as  a  closed 
canon  from  the  death  of  Moses,  but  as  a  canon 
begun  by  Moses  and  to  be  continued  by  his  suc- 
cessors. 

This  is  analogous  to  what  we  find  in  the  New 
Testament  and  later.  No  proof  need  be  cited 
that  by  the  law  the  New  Testament  men  often  mean 
the  Pentateuch  as  distinguished  from  the  rest  of 
the  Old  Testament,  but  they  also  apply  the  term 
to  a  wider  range  of  writings,  presumptively  to 
the  whole  Old  Testament,  John  x.  34;  xv.  25  ; 
xii.  34;  I  Cor.  xiv.  21  ;  Rom.  iii.  10-19,  and  some- 
times, possibly,  to  short  sections  of  the  writings 
they  held  to  be  sacred,  e.o-.  Rom.  vii.  2,  3.  This 
difference  of  use  is  important  and  has  not  been 
sufficiently  noticed.  It  is  not  true  that  the  writers  of 
the  Old  or  the  New  Testament  apply  the  term  the 
law  exclusively  to  a  large  body  of  writings  attrib- 
uted to  Moses,  but  it  is  true  that  they  never  ap- 
ply the  term  to  any  large  body  of  writings  except 
such  as  may  include  the  sacred  writings  attributed 
to  Moses. 

In  addition  to  its  use  of  the  term  law,  the  con- 
tents of  the  Book  of  Joshua,  both  the  facts  stated 
and  the  words  used  in  stating  them  presuppose 
large  portions  of  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch. 
The  parts  thus  presupposed  come  alike  from  the 
alleged  prophetic,  deuteronomic  and  priestly  parts 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  17d 

of  the  Pentateuch.  The  advocates  of  the  current 
school  of  Pentateuchal  analysis  affirm  that  the 
first  chapter  of  Joshua  is  taken  mainly  from  the 
work  of  the  Deuteronomists,  that  the  following 
chapters  come  mostly  from  the  Jehovist  and  the 
earlier  Elohist,  but  with  a  good  many  sentences 
and  parts  of  sentences  from  the  later  Elohists ; 
that  larger  sections  of  the  work  of  the  later 
Elohists  and  of  the  Elohistic  redactors  are  found 
further  on  in  the  book ;  that  the  whole  book  is 
made  up  in  this  way.  If  they  make  out  their 
point  there  is  no  escaping  from  the  conclusion 
that  the  Book  of  Joshua  presupposes  all  the  parts 
of  the  Pentateuch,  as  their  analysis  defines  the 
parts,  and  this  conclusion  certainly  follows  from 
the  passages  they  cite,  whether  these  passages 
prove  their  analysis  to  be  correct  or  not.* 

Merely  from  the  phenomena  found  in  this  book, 
therefore,  it  is  evident  that  the  Pentateuch  was 
written  earlier  than  Joshua.  If  any  one  holds 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  put  together  after  the 
exile,  this  very  fact  is  evidence  to  him  that  the 

*  No  one  can  read  Josh.  1.  or  xxiii. ,  looking  up  the  references 
to  Deuteronomy,  without  seeing  how  dependent  Joshua 
here  is  on  Deuteronomy.  Further,  Joshua  presupposes 
the  other  books  through  Deuteronomy,  e.g.  Josh.  xiv. 
6-13;  Deut.  i.  23-38;  Nimi.  xiii.,  xiv.  Josh.  i.  13,  14; 
iv.  12 ;  xxii.  2-6  ;  Deut.  iii.  12-20  ;  Num.  xxxii.  Josh.  viii.  31 ; 
Deut.  xxvii.  5-7;  Ex.  xx.  24,  25.  Josh,  xx.;  Deut.  xix.  ; 
Num.  XXXV.  6-34.  Still  further,  Joshua  directly  presup- 
poses the  earlier  books  :  Josh,  xxiii.  13  ;  Num.  xxxiii.  55. 
Josh.  xxiv.  32 ;  Gen.  xxxiii.  19  ;  1.  24-26  ;  Ex.  xiii.  19.  Josh. 
xxiv.  2-4,  14,  15;  Gen.  xii.,  etc.  Josh.  xvii.  3,  4;  Num. 
xxvii.,  and  many  other  instances. 


180  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Book  of  Joshua  was  ^y^tten  yet  later;  but  apart 
from  this  there  is  no  weighty  reason  for  assigning 
to  Joshua  a  date  much  later  than  the  latest  events 
mentioned  in  it.  The  closing  verses  of  Joshua 
with  the  account  of  the  capture  and  naming  of 
Dan  (xix.  47,  cf.  Jud.  xviii.)  show  that  the  book 
was  not  written  in  its  present  form  till  some  time 
after  the  death  of  Joshua,  yet  these  events  are 
said  to  have  occurred  within  the  lifetime  of  Phin- 
ehas,  the  grandnephew  of  Moses,  who  was  himself 
associated  with  Moses  in  public  affairs,  Judges 
XX.  1, 28 ;  Num.  xxv.  7, 1 1 ;  Ps.  cvi.  30;  Num.  xxxi.  6; 
Josh.  xxii.  13,  30,  31,  32  ;   xxiv.  33. 

The  Direct  Testimony  of  the  Book.  Turning 
from  the  phenomena  presented  in  the  Book  of 
Joshua  to  the  testimony  given  by  the  book,  we 
find  this  very  explicit,  not  only  to  the  effect  that 
the  written  law  of  Moses  was  in  existence  before 
the  Book  of  Joshua  was  written,  but  to  the  effect 
that  it  was  in  existence  before  the  death  of  Moses  ; 
that  it  was  formally  handed  over  by  Moses  to 
Joshua  ;  that  Joshua  received  and  used  it;  that  it 
was  present  when  the  Ebal  altar  was  built,  and 
was  afterward  read  to  the  people.  That  the  Book 
of  Joshua  recognizes  the  popular  legislation  of 
Deuteronomy  as  included  in  the  written  law  to 
which  it  testifies  would  probably  not  be  called  in 
question  ;  what  else  it  thus  recognizes  might  be  a 
matter  of  dispute,  for  the  testimony  is  not  explicit 
on  this  point.  But  what  has  been  said  above  con- 
cerning the  phenomena  of  the  Book  of  Joshua 
shows  that  its  writer  (or  writers)  testify  to  the 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  181 

existence  in  the  times  of  Joshua  of  large  parts  of 
the  present  contents  of  Genesis,  Exodus,  and 
Numbers,  whether  they  included  these  in  what 
they  call  the  Book  of  the  Law  or  not.  It  cannot 
be  necessary  to  argue  this  in  detail.  Many 
defenders  of  the  traditional  view  hold  that  in  the 
circumstances  we  must  regard  the  testimony  of 
the  Book  of  Joshua  to  the  law  as  applying  to  the 
entire  Pentateuch  ;  this  presumption  could  not 
well  be  denied  by  one  who  holds  that  the  Book  of 
Joshua  is  the  closing  part  of  the  work  of  redac- 
tors who  constructed  Joshua  mainly  out  of  the 
closing  sections  of  the  documents  they  had  used 
in  constructing  the  Pentateuch. 

Not  to  insist,  however,  on  giving  to  the  testi- 
mony this  extent  of  meaning,  it  is  at  least  clear 
that  the  Book  of  Joshua  testifies  to  the  existence 
in  Joshua's  time  of -a  considerable  body  of  sacred 
writings,  produced  under  the  influence  of  Moses 
and  Joshua,  and  in  great  part,  at  least,  by  these 
two  men  themselves,  and  very  largely  if  not 
entirely  identifiable  with  our  present  Pentateuch. 

The  validity  of  this  testimony  does  not  depend 
altogether  on  the  question  when  the  Book  of 
Joshua  was  written.  No  matter  when  written, 
it  testifies  as  alleged.  In  this  the  argument  from 
the  testimony  differs  from  the  argument  from  the 
phenomena  of  the  book. 

Positively  the  only  way  to  meet  the  testimony 
is  that  in  which  it  is  actually  met  by  the  ablest  of 
the  attacking  critics,  namely,  by  asserting  that  it 
is  either  false  or  else,  while  true  in  its  own  propef 


182  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

character,  is  yet  fiction  and  not  history.  This  is 
the  same  view  as  is  held  by  the  same  men  in 
regard  to  the  testimony  of  the  Pentateuch  it- 
self; it  is  sufficiently  met  by  what  Professor 
Bissell  says  on  pages  71-77  of  this  volume. 

EZRA   AND   NEHEMIAH. 

These  books  contain  the  latest  records  of  con- 
secutive history  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  are 
the  latest  written  or  among  the  latest  written  of 
its  books.  Much  of  the  narrative  parts  of  them 
is  written  in  the  first  person,  indicating  that  Ezra 
himself  either  wrote  the  Book  of  Ezra  or  wrote 
memoirs  from  which  some  later  writer  compiled 
the  book,  and  that  Nehemiah  did  the  same  for 
the  book  of  Nehemiah.  There  is  no  reason  for 
dating  either  book  later  than  about  375  B.C.,  or 
later  than  the  probable  lifetime  of  Nehemiah.* 


*  It  is  now  very  generally  held  that  the  Book  of  Nehe- 
miah mentions  events  much  later  than  Nehemiah's  time, 
thus  showing  that  the  book  was  either  written  or  annotated 
by  a  later  hand  than  his.  But  this  view  is  based  on  a  confused 
notion  of  the  chronology.  Nehemiah's  return  to  Artaxerxes 
after  he  had  been  twelve  years  governor  In  Jerusalem, 
occurred  the  thirty-second  j^ear  of  Artaxerxes,  B.C.  433, 
Neh.  xiii.  6 ;  v.  14.  Later,  perhaps  one  year  later,  he  again 
came  to  Judea  as  governor.  This  is  commonly  and  perhaps 
correctly  assumed  to  have  been  B.  c.  432.  But  many  current 
arguments  concerning  the  book  tacitl3^  assume  that  Nehe- 
miah's career  closed  at  about  this  time.  There  is  no  proof 
that  this  was  the  case,  and  no  probability  of  it.  The  narra- 
tive certainly  makes  the  impression  that  Nehemiah  was  a 
very  young  man  when  he  first  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  the 
twentieth  of  Artaxerxes,  and  was  therefore  still  a  young 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  183 

Evidence  frojn  the  PJienomena  presented  in  Ezra 
and  NehemiaJi.  No  one  doubts  that  the  authors 
of  these  books  as  they  now  stand  had  before 
them  the  Pentateuch,  or  most  of  it  at  least,  in 
substantially  its  present  form.  The  traditional 
view  teaches  this  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  the 
various  anti-traditional  opinions  represent  that 
the  times  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were  the  times 
when  the  priest-code  parts  of  the  Hexateuch  were 
being  produced,  and  when  the  different  parts  were 
being  combined  into  their  present  form.  Those 
of  them  who  hold  that  portions  of  this  work  were 

man  wlien,  thirteen  years  later,  be  came  to  Jerusalem  the 
second  time.  He  may  iiave  lived  tliere  as  long-  as  fifty  or 
sixty  3'ears  after  that  without  being'  extraordinarily  long- 
lived. 

No  event  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Nehemiah  can  be 
proved  to  be  later  than  the  enrollment  of  priests  and 
Levites,  xii.  10,  11,  22,  23.  This  is  dated  in  general  terms 
as  "in  thedaysof  Eliashib,  Joiada,  Johanan,  and  Jaddua," 
the  high  priests,  and  contains  the  name  of  Jaddua,  who, 
by  death,  ceased  to  be  high  priest  about  the  time  of 
the  death  of  Alexander  the  Great,  say  B.C.  324.  This  date 
is  limited  by  two  specifications :  the  enrollment  was 
"upon  the  kingdom  of  Darius,"  and  was  "up  to  the  days 
of  Johanan  the  son  of  Eliashib."  This  last  specification 
conclusively  shows  that  the  enrollment  of  Jaddua  was  no^ 
later  than  the  date  of  his  succeeding  Johanan,  and  was 
probably  earlier  than  that.  It  follows  that  the  Darius  in 
whose  reign  this  enrollment  was  begun  cannot  have  been 
Codomanus,  as  he  is  now  currently  said  to  have  been,  but 
must  have  been  just  the  man  one  would  naturally  suppose, 
namely,  the  immediate  successor  of  Artaxerxes  Longi. 
manus.  The  enrollment  was  not  completed  till  some  time 
in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon,  but  may  easily  have 
been  completed  within  the  lifetime  of  Nehemiah. 


184  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

done  later  than  the  writing  of  the  Book  of  Nehe- 
miah  would  not  regard  this  later  work  as  requiring 
much  change  in  the  work  previously  done,  save  in 
the  way  of  mere  addition. 

In  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  of  these  two 
books,  the  word  law,  denoting  divine  law,  occurs 
about  thirty  times  ;  the  places  may  be  found  by  a 
concordance  ;  the  more  important  instances  we 
shall  soon  have  occasion  to  notice.  To  these 
should  be  added  Ezra  iii.  4;  vi.  18  ;  Neh.  viii.  5,  15  ; 
xiii.  I,  which  mention  the  written  divine  law 
without  using  the  word  law.  In  most  of  these 
instances  the  law  is  a  single  written  book, 
Neh.  viii.  i,  3,  etc. ;  there  is  no  instance  in  which 
it  can  be  proved  that  these  books  use  the  term 
law  to  include  anything  not  written,  though  the 
argument  would  not  be  materially  affected  if  we 
should  interpret  such  passages  as  Neh.  ix.  13,  26 
as  denoting  divine  requirement  in  general. 

It  would  not  be  easy  to  prove  that  the  terms 
"  law,"  *''book  of  the  law,"  "  book  of  Moses,"  as  used 
in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  are  convertible  with  the 
term  Pentateuch.  Indeed  the  book  of  Moses  of 
Ezra  vi.  18  seems  to  have  been  a  book  that 
included  regulations  for  the  courses  and  divisions 
of  the  priests  and  Levites ;  no  such  matters  are 
found  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  such  matters  are 
found  in  i  Chron.  xxiv.-xxvi.  This  may  perhaps 
indicate  that  the  author  of  Ezra,  like  the  men  of 
the  New  Testament  and  of  Joshua,  sometimes 
thought  of  the  divine  written  law  as  including  a 
series  of  writings  additional  to  those  with  which 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  185 

Moses  began  the  series.*  But  while  this  is  true, 
it  is  also  true  that  their  book  of  the  law  certainly 
included  most  of  the  contents  of  our  present  Pen- 
tateuch, apparently  in  the  order  in  which  the  Penta- 
teuch contains  them.  It  included  these,  no  matter 
what  else  it  included.  It  is  also  certain  that  the 
Pentateuchal  legislation,  including  very  promi- 
nently the  priest-code  legislation,  was  in  the  minds 
of  these  men  the  especially  prominent  part  of  the 
book  of  the  law.  If  this  were  disputed,  a  large 
portion  of  the  two  books  might  be  put  in  evidence 
to  prove  it,  including,  for  example,  Ezra  iii.  3-6 ; 
Neh.  ix.  6-23  ;  x.  29-39. 

Considered  merely  as  phenomena  and  not  as 
testimony,  these  things  are  conclusive  proof  of  the 
existence  of  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  in  its 
present  order,  before  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were 
written.  But  this  branch  of  the  evidence  reaches 
farther.  These  two  books,  in  common  with 
Chronicles,  Daniel,  Esther,  Haggai,  Zech.  i.-viii., 
Malachi,  all  professedly  and  indisputably  post- 
exilic,  have  a  literary  character  of  their  own.  They 
differ  linguistically  from  the  books  written  between 
the  times  of  David  and  those  of  the  exile,  and 


*  Parallel  to  this  is  the  use  of  the  term  law  in  the  Aramaic 
of  Dan.  vl.  4-10.  The  enemies  of  Daniel  proposed  to  entrap 
him  through  his  fidelity  to  the  law  of  his  God.  But  the 
conduct  for  which  they  accused  him  was  praying  three 
times  a  day,  and  praying  toward  Jerusalem.  These  points 
are  not  mentioned  at  all  in  tlie  Pentateuch.  In  this  par- 
ticular instance  the  law  of  his  God  was  either  something 
contained  in  the  other  Old  Testament  books,  outside  the 
Pentateuch,  or  something  distinct  from  the  Scriptures. 


186  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

both  these  groups  again  differ  from  the  Hexa- 
teuchal  writings.  On  the  supposition  that  half 
the  Hexateuch  was  written  and  the  whole  of  it 
edited  during  the  generations  in  which  the  books 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were  written,  the  several 
parts  of  it  ought  to  be  marked  with  the  literary- 
peculiarities  of  the  times.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
the  men  of  these  generations  had  the  philological 
and  literary  skill  for  avoiding  this.  It  is  here 
impossible  to  do  more  with  this  argument  than 
barely  state  a  meager  outline,  without  instances. 
Three  general  facts  probably  would  be  admitted 
by  all  who  have  studied  the  matter — first,  the 
books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  have  certain  very 
marked  linguistic  affinities  with  the  various  parts 
of  the  Hexateuch,  differing  in  this  from  the  pre- 
exilic  prophets  and  historical  books  ;  secondly,  in  a 
yet  wider  range  of  instances  these  books  are  free 
from  peculiarities  found  in  the  Hexateuch,  and 
notably  from  a  large  class  of  peculiarities  which 
are  most  naturally  explained  as  belonging  to  an 
earlier  stage  of  the  language  ;  thirdly,  in  certain 
important  classes  of  instances  the  phenomena  in 
the  post-exilic  books  that  distinguish  them  from 
the  pre-exilic  are  conspicuously  absent  from  the 
Hexateuch,  and  among  these  many  phenomena 
that  naturally  belong  to  a  later  stage  of  the 
language.  These  statements,  of  course,  are  correct 
only  in  a  very  general  sense ;  the  details  would 
vary  at  different  points.  The  position  of  the  anti- 
traditional  criticism  seems  to  be  that  the  phenom- 
ena of  the  first  of  these  three  classes  proves  that 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  187 

much  of  the  Pentateuchal  work  was  done  by  the 
men  of  the  same  Hteraiy  generations  that  produced 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  while  the  phenomena  of  the 
second  and  third  classes  are  to  be  accounted  for 
by  saying  that  these  writers,  like  their  prede- 
cessors, from  Uzziah's  time  onward,  did  their 
torah-writing  in  antique  style,  this  being,  like  the 
location  of  the  giving  of  the  torah  in  the  desert,  a 
part  of  the  literary  form  of  what  they  wrote.  If 
this  explanation  be  true,  the  literary  aptitude  of 
these  men  was  something  marvelous  beyond  all 
experience.  The  more  natural  explanation  is  that 
the  writers  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were  close 
students  of  the  Hexateuch,  so  that  their  hterary 
style  was  affected  thereby;  but  that  also  the 
Hebrew  of  the  different  parts  of  the  Hexateuch 
is  really  the  ancient  Hebrew  it  seems  to  be,  as  that 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  is  the  modern  Hebrew  it 
seems  to  be. 

If  this  argument  favors  the  ancient  date  of  the 
Pentateuch,  it  also  favors  the  ancient  date  of  the 
Book  of  Joshua.  Further,  if  any  one  will  read 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  through,  noting  how  persist- 
ently they  connect  later  events,  even  up  to  their 
own  times,  with  the  facts  of  early  history  they 
mention,  and  will  then  notice  how  prevalent  this 
practice  is  in  the  other  biblical  writings,  he  will 
find  in  this  a  pretty  strong  reason  for  dating  the 
Book  of  Joshua  not  much  later  than  the  latest 
events  it  mentions.  Whatever  thus  tends  to  estab- 
lish an  early  date  for  Joshua  has  weight  for 
proving  the  yet  earlier  date  of  the  Pentateuch. 


188  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

TJie  Direct  Testimony  of  the  Books  of  Ezra  and 
NeJieiniaJi.  Two  facts  here  especially  attract  our 
attention.  The  first  is  the  prominent  mention  of 
Ezra  as  the  scribe  of  the  law  of  the  God  of  heaven, 
Ezra  vii.  6,  10,  II,  12,  21,  25  ;  Neh.  viii.  1,2,4,5, 
9,  13  ;  xii.  26,  36.  An  examination  of  these  pas- 
sages will  make  clear  the  fact  that  Ezra,  in  Baby- 
lonia, for  a  long  time  before  he  came  to  Jerusalem, 
had  been  engaged  in  study  and  literary  work  upon 
the  written  law.  Probably  he  was  not  alone  in 
this.  There  is  an  element  of  fable  in  the  vast 
body  of  Jewish  and  Christian  tradition  that 
attributes  work  on  the  Scriptures  to  him  and 
Nehemiah  *  and  their  contemporaries  ;  but  accord- 
ing to  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  this 
scripture  work  itself  is  fact  and  not  fable.  Without 
admitting  that  the  scribes  of  the  times  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  did  the  kind  of  work  on  the  law  that 
the  anti-traditional  critics  assign  to  them,  we  may 
be  perfectly  certain  that  they  worked  diligently 
and  extensively  on  the  law. 

This  is  one  fact  distinctly  testified  to  by  these 
books.  The  other  is  that  the  book  of  the  law  was 
not  a  work  which  v/as  then  coming  into  existence, 
but   was   an   ancient   work   which   had    been    in 


*  It  is  often  very  conflderitly  asserted  that  tradition 
attributes  nothing- of  tiiis  kind  to  Neliemiah  ;  this  is  a  mis- 
take; the  traditions  make  Neliemiah  very  prominent 
among  the  men  of  the  great  synagogue,  attribute  to  him 
the  collection  of  a  librarj'^  for  the  uses  of  scripture  study, 
2  Mac.  ii.  13,  and  also,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
the  closing  of  tlie  Old  Testament  canon,  Baba  Batra, 
fol.  14a. 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  189 

existence  from  the  days  of  Moses.  They  call  this 
law  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  book  of  Moses,  Ezra 
iii.  2;  Neh.  viii.  I  ;  ix.  13,  14;  x.  29,  etc.  They 
represent  that  the  distinction  of  priests  and 
Levites,  those  between  the  various  sacrifices,  and 
other  ceremonial  distinctions  and  ordinances,  were 
already  ancient  in  the  times  of  Zerubbabel,  eighty 
years  before  Ezra  came  up  to  Jerusalem,  Ezra 
i.  5  ;  ii.  70;  iii.  2-7,  etc.  They  date  the  legislation 
from  the  times  of  Moses,  Neh.  i.  7-9  ;  viii.  14,  15  ; 
xiii.  I,  2.  They  say  that  Israel  in  the  times  of 
Moses  was  already  disobedient  to  the  commands 
thus  given,  Neh.  ix.  16-18.  They  testify  that  this 
law  was  in  existence,  and  was  alternately  obeyed 
and  disobeyed,  from  the  times  of  the  conquest 
under  Joshua,  Neh.  ix.  25-34. 

How  far  this  testimony  applies  to  the  whole 
Pentateuch,  and  how  far  it  is  possible  to  restrict 
some  of  it  to  some  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  only, 
is  a  question  to  which  we  can  now  give  no  time. 
In  view  of  the  evidence  already  presented,  the 
presumption  is  against  a  restrictive  interpretation. 
To  keep  well  within  limits,  however,  the  main 
difference  between  the  testimony  of  these  two 
books  and  that  of  Joshua  consists  in  their  being 
more  explicit  in  regard  to  certain  parti  of  the 
priest-code  legislation.  They  testify  not  merely 
to  the  existence  of  this  legislation,  but  to  its  being 
a  part  of  the  contents  of  the  book  of  the  law. 
Beyond  this,  these  two  books  testify,  like  the 
Book  of  Joshua,  to  the  existence,  from  the  times 
of  Moses  and  Joshua,  of  a  considerable  body  of 


190  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

sacred  writings,  produced  under  the  influence  of 
Moses,  and  in  great  part  at  least  by  Moses  him- 
self, and  having  very  largely  if  not  entirely  the 
same  contents  with  our  present  Pentateuch. 

Alleged  Co7it7'ary  Testimony.  But  it  is  urged 
that  these  books  also  testify  that  certain  observ- 
ances required  by  the  ceremonial  law  are  men- 
tioned as  novelties  in  Nehemiah's  time,  and  that 
this  is  positive  evidence  against  the  previous 
existence  of  these  parts  of  the  ceremonial  law. 
One  instance  of  this  kind  is  that  in  Neh.  viii.  14-18, 
especially  ver.  17 : 

"And  all  the  congreg-ation  of  them  that  were  come 
again  out  of  the  captivity  made  bootlis,  and  dwelt  in  the 
booths ;  for  since  the  days  of  Jeshua  the  son  of  Nun,  unto 
that  day  had  not  the  children  of  Israel  done  so." 

But  if  any  one  will  read  this  in  the  Hebrew  he 
will  observe  that  the  emphasis  is  accumulated  on 
the  word  "  so."  The  statement  is  not  that  the 
Israelites  had  never  till  this  occasion  used  the 
booths,  but  that  they  had  never  so  used  them  as 
on  this  occasion.  With  this  emphasis,  the  verse 
distinctly  implies  that  the  use  of  booths  had  been 
in  existence  from  Joshua's  time,  instead  of  imply- 
ing the  contrary. 

Similarly  it  is  alleged  that  in  Neh.  x.  32  : 

"Also  we  made  ordinances  for  us  to  charge  ourselves 
yearly  with  the  third  part  of  a  shekel  for  the  service  of  the 
house  of  our  God," 

we  have  the  origin  of  what  was  afterward  incor- 
porated into  the  ceremonial  law  as  the  half-shekel 
tax  for  the   sanctuary,  Ex.  xxx.  13-16;    xxxviii. 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  191 

25-28.  It  is  therefore  inferred  that  these  parts  of 
Exodus  are  of  yet  later  date  than  the  times  of  Nehe- 
miah,  and  of  the  redaction  of  most  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  also  that  we  have  here  an  instance  of  the 
incorporation  of  a  late  custom  into  the  legislation 
attributed  to  Moses.  But  the  tax  of  Exodus  is  a 
half-shekel,  paid  but  once  and  used  for  a  building 
fund  ;  that  of  Nehemiah  is  a  third  of  a  shekel,  paid 
annually,  used  for  perishable  supplies.  The  tax 
of  Nehemiah  is  far  from  identical  with  that  of 
Moses  ;  it  is  rather  mentioned,  like  the  lot  for  the 
wood  offering,  ver.  34,  etc.,  as  something  added  to 
the  ancient  Mosaic  requirements. 

These  and  similar  instances,  therefore,  instead 
of  proving  that  the  Pentateuchal  laws  were  in 
Nehemiah's  time  still  in  the  process  of  formation, 
prove  something  entirely  different.  In  the  times 
of  Zerubbabel,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  there  was  a 
body  of  ceremonial  laws  not  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch,  and  additions  were  made  to  this  as 
occasion  required.  Instances  of  this  are  the  third- 
shekel  tax,  the  wood-offering,  the  special  arrange- 
ments for  reading  the  law,  Neh.  viii.,  the  courses 
of  the  priests  and  Levites,  Ezra  vi.  18,  the  singing 
ritual,  Neh.  xii.  35,  36  and  several  other  places, 
and  in  the  main  the  arrangements  in  which  the 
nethinim,  the  gatekeepers  and  other  temple  serv^- 
ants  were  concerned.  These  men  speak  of  some 
of  these  arrangements  as  ancient,  attributing  them 
to  David  or  others  ;  for  some  of  them  they  them- 
selves take  the  responsibility.  Had  they  been 
engaged  at  the  time  in  creating  the  Pentateuchal 


193  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

legislation,  they  would  certainly  have  incorporated 
these  laws  into  it  instead  of  leaving  them  outside. 
This  strongly  confirms  their  direct  testimony  to 
the  effect  that  the  Pentateuchal  laws  were  then  an 
ancient  and  closed  code. 

Silences.  Finally,  we  have  in  these  books  the 
same  phenomena  that  are  sometimes  so  strenu- 
ously insisted  upon  in  the  case  of  the  historical 
books  that  are  earlier,  namely,  the  recognition  of 
certain  Pentateuchal  institutions,  coupled  with 
silence  in  regard  to  others,  and  with  the  mention 
of  a  body  of  institutions  that  are  clearly  non- 
Pentateuchal.  Facts  already  examined  prove  this 
to  be  the  case.  Nobody  would  claim  that  these 
facts  have  the  least  weight  to  show  the  non- 
existence of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  time  Avhen 
Nehemiah  was  written ;  men  should  be  careful 
how  they  claim  that  precisely  similar  facts  have 
great  weight  to  show  the  non-existence  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  the  times  when  the  Books  of  Samuel, 
for  example,  were  written. 

THE   BOOKS   OF    KINGS. 

Tradition  attributes  these  to  the  prophet  Je- 
remiah. The  latest  event  they  record  is  dated 
in  the  first  year  of  Evil-Merodach,  king  of 
Babylon,  about  sixty-five  years  after  Jeremiah 
began  to  prophesy,  in  the  thirteenth  year  of 
Josiah,  2  Ki.  xxv.  27 ;  Jer.  xxv.  3,  i.  What- 
ever Jeremiah  himself  may  have  had  to  do  with 
them,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  they 
were  completed  in  his  times,  or  that  they  were 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  193 

largely  made  up  by  the  process  of  transcribing 
from  older  works.  A  hundred  years  or  more  later 
the  Books  of  Chronicles  were  made  by  similar 
processes,  transcribing  with  editorial  changes  parts 
of  the  contents  of  Kings  and  Samuel,  either  from 
these  books  themselves  or  from  other  sources,  and 
adding  other  materials. 

Much  of  the  testimony  of  the  Books  of  Kings 
to  the  Pentateuch  is  found  in  the  sections  that 
are  duplicated  in  Chronicles  and  should  properly 
be  treated  there  rather  than  here.  Other  parts  of 
it  have  value  only  as  they  interpret  the  fuller 
statements  made  by  the  prophets.  The  present 
treatment  is  restricted  by  these  considerations. 
The  Direct  Testimojty  of  the  Books  of  Kings, 
I.  Instances  connected  with  Josiah's  reform  : 

**  Hilkiah  the  high  priest  said  unto  Shaphan  the  scribe, 

1  have  found  tiie  book  of  the  law  in  the  house  of  Jehovah  ; 
and  Hilkiah  gave  the  book  unto  Shaphan,  and  he  read  it," 

2  Ki.  xxii.  8. 

**  Shaphan  the  scribe  told  the  king,  saying,  Hilkiah  the 
priest  hath  given  me  a  book  ;  and  Shaphan  read  it  before 
the  king  ;  .  .  .as  the  king  heard  the  words  of  the  book 
of  the  law,  he  rent  his  clothes,"  10,  11. 

**  Inquire  ye  of  Jehovah  for  me  .  .  .  concerning  the 
words  of  this  book  that  hath  been  found  .  .  .  because  our 
fathers  obeyed  not  the  words  of  this  book,  to  do  according 
to  everything  written  in  it,"  13. 

**Thus  saith  Jehovah,  I  am  about  to  bring  in  evil  ...  all 
the  words  of  the  book  which  the  king  of  Judah  hath 
read,"  16. 

**  He  read  in  their  ears  all  the  words  of  the  book  of  the 
covenant  that  had  been  found  in  the  house  of  Jehovah.  .  .  . 
To  establish  the  words  of  this  covenant  which  are  written 
in  this  book,"  xxiii.  2,  3. 


194  i:'ENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM. 

"The  king  commanded,  .  .  .  Make  ye  a  passover  to 
Jehovah  your  God,  according-  to  what  is  written  in  this 
book  of  the  covenant.  For  there  had  not  been  made  the 
like  of  this  passover,  from  the  days  of  the  judges  who 
judged  Israel,  and  all  the  days  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and 
the  kings  of  Judah  ;  but  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  the  king 
Josiah  this  passover  was  made  to  Jehovah  in  Jerusalem," 
21-23. 

"Josiah  consumed,"  the  sorcerers,  etc.  "In  order  to 
establish  the  words  of  the  law  that  were  written  in  tlie 
book  which  Hilkiah  the  priest  found.  .  .  .  And  like  him  was 
there  no  king  before  him,  who  turned  imto  Jehovah  with 
all  his  heart,  and  with  all  his  soul,  and  with  all  his  strength, 
according  to  all  the  law  of  Moses,  and  after  him  there  arose 
none  like  him,"  24,  25. 

2.  Other  relatively  late  instances  : 

Manasseh  "put  the  graven  image  of  the  Asherah  that  he 
made  into  the  house  concerning  which  Jehovah  said  unto 
David  and  unto  Solomon  his  son,  ...  if  only  they  will 
observe  to  do  according  to  all  which  I  have  commanded 
them,  and  to  all  the  law  which  Moses  my  servant  com- 
manded them,"  2  Ki.  xxi.  7,  8. 

"And  Jehovah  testified  with  Israel  and  with  Judah,  by 
the  hand  of  every  prophet  of  his,  every  seer,  saying,  .  .  . 
observe  j^e  my  commandments,  my  statutes,  according  to 
all  the  law  which  I  have  commanded  j'our  fathers,  and 
which  I  have  sent  unto  you  by  the  hand  of  my  servants 
the  prophets,"  2  Ki.  xvii.  13. 

"  And  they  are  not  doing  according  to  their  statutes  and 
according  to  their  judgments,  and  according  to  the  law, 
and  according  to  the  commandment  which  Jehovah  com- 
manded the  sons  of  Jacob,  whose  name  he  made  Is- 
rael," 34. 

"  And  the  statutes  and  the  judgments  and  the  law  and 
the  commandment  which  he  wrote  for  you,  ye  shall  observe 
to  do  forever,"  37. 

"And  the  king  of  Assyria  commanded,  saying,  Take  ye 
thither  one  of  the  priests  whom  ye  brought  into  exile  from 
there,  that  they  may  go  and  dwell  there,  and  niaj'  teach 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  195 

them  law,  the  usages  of  the  God  of  the  land.  And  one  of 
the  priests  went  in,  .  .  .  and  was  teaching-  tlieni  hiw,  Jiow 
they  should  fear  Jehovah,"  27,  28.  The  word  here  trans- 
lated, "  Teach  them  law,"  is  the  hiphil  verb  of  the  stem 
from  which  tlie  noun  torah  comes. 

*'  Tlie  king  of  Ass3n-ia  carried  Israel  into  exile  to  Assyria 
.  .  .  because  tliey  did  not  obey  the  voice  of  Jehovah  their 
God,  and  transgressed  his  covenant,  all  which  Moses  the 
servant  of  Jehovah  had  commanded,"  xviii.  12. 

Hezekiah  "  removed  the  high  places,  and  brake  in  pieces 
the  statues,  and  cut  down  the  Asherah,  and  brake  up  the 
brazen  serpent  that  Moses  made,  because  until  those  days, 
the  sons  of  Isi-ael  were  burning  incense  to  it,"  xviii.  4. 

**  He  clave  to  Jehovah,  he  turned  not  aside  from  after 
him,  and  kept  his  commandments  which  Jehovah  com- 
manded Moses,"  6, 

3.  Relatively  earlier  instances : 

Amaziah  '* smote  his  servants  who  had  smitten  the  king 
his  father ;  and  the  sons  of  the  smitei*s  he  slew  not,  accord- 
ing to  what  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses, 
that  which  Jehovah  commanded,  saying,  Fathers  shall  not 
be  put  to  death  for  sons,  and  sons  shall  not  be  put  to  death 
for  fathers,  but  a  man  shall  be  put  to  death  for  his  own 
sin,"  2  Ki.  xiv.  6.  The  citation  is  verbal,  though  not  quite 
exact,  from  Deut.  xxiv.  16. 

**  And  Jehoash  did  the  right  in  the  eyes  of  Jehovah  all 
his  days,  as  Jehoiada  the  priest  had  taught  him  law," 
xii.  2  (3).     Here  the  verb  in  the  hiphil. 

*'  And  Jehu  observed  not  to  walk  in  the  law  of  Jehovah," 
X.  31. 

David's  charge  to  Solomon  :  **  And  keep  the  ordinances 
of  Jehovah  thy  God,  to  walk  in  his  ways,  to  keep  his 
statutes,  his  commandments,  and  his  judgments,  and  his 
testimonies,  according  to  what  is  written  in  the  law  of 
Moses,"  1  Ki.  ii.  3. 

Solomon's  language  at  dedication  of  temple  :  '*  For  thou 
thyself  hast  separated  them  to  thee  for  an  inheritance  from 
all  the  peoples  of  the  earth,  accoi-ding  as  thou  spakest  by 
the  hand  of  Moses  thy  servant,  when  thou  broughtest  out 
our  fathers  from  Egypt,  O  Lord  Jehovah,"  viii.  53. 


196  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

"Blessed  be  Jehovah  who  has  given  rest  to  his  people 
Israel,  according  to  all  which  he  spake  ;  not  one  word  has 
fallen,  of  all  his  good  word  which  he  spake  by  the  hand  of 
Moses  his  servant.  May  Jehovah  our  God  be  with  us, 
according  as  he  has  been  with  our  fathers,"  56,  57. 

"There  was  nothing  in  the  ark  save  the  two  tables  of 
stones,  which  Moses  placed  there  in  Horeb,  the  covenant 
of  Jehovah,  which  he  made  with  the  sons  of  Israel,  when 
they  came  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,"  9. 

This  testimony  is  certainly  very  full  and  explicit 
to  the  effect  that  during  every  period  of  the  his- 
tory recorded  in  the  Books  of  Kings,  Israel  was  in 
possession[of  the  written  book  of  the  law  of  Moses; 
that  this  written  law  included  a  large  body  of 
statutes,  judgments,  commandments  and  testi- 
monies ;  that  it  had  been  in  existence  as  the 
recognized  legislation  of  Israel,  sometimes  obeyed 
and  sometimes  slighted,  during  the  times  of  the 
Judges,  of  David  and  Solomon,  and  after  Solomon 
in  both  the  northern  and  southern  kingdoms — that 
is,  at  every  period  from  the  days  when  Moses  is 
said  to  have  lived. 

The  Books  of  Kings  are  less  explicit  in  regard 
to  the  extent  of  this  written  law.  If  any  one  will 
read  the  above  passages  with  their  contexts  he 
will  see  that  great  emphasis  is  placed  on  matters 
that  are  now  contained  in  the  Deuteronomic  legis- 
lation. That  this  is  true  of  the  account  given  of 
the  times  of  Josiah  has  been  abundantly  noticed ; 
it  is  alleged  as  a  reason  why  we  should  believe 
that  the  Deuteronomic  code  originated  at  that 
time.  But  the  Books  of  Kings  testify  that  these 
matters  were  emphasized  in  the  days  of  Amaziah 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  197 

and  of  Solomon  just  as  sharply  as  in  the  times  of 
Josiah  ;  it  is  not  merely  that  the  writers  of  the 
books  so  emphasize  them,  but  that  they  say  that 
Amaziah  and  Solomon  emphasized  them,  and  that 
all  the  kings  of  the  northern  kingdom  were  bound 
to  do  the  same,  and  that  Samaria  fell  because  they 
failed  of  doing  it.  If  the  Books  of  Kings  are  to 
be  believed,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  legis- 
lative contents  of  Deuteronomy  were  in  the  Mosaic 
writings  of  which  they  speak,  from  the  times  of 
Moses  himself.  This  holds  true,  whether  the 
''  book  of  the  covenant"  of  Josiah's  time  was  the 
same  with  the  '^  book  of  the  law,"  or  was  only  a 
section  of  that  book  ;  whether  Josiah's  book  of 
the  law  was  the  Deuteronomic  law-book,  or  was 
the  whole  body  of  Mosaic  writings,  or  was  the 
Mosaic  writings  supplemented  by  those  of  suc- 
ceeding prophets  ;  whether  the  copy  then  found 
was  the  only  one  in  existence  (this  is  the  traditional 
opinion,  but  is  very  improbable),  or  whether  the 
attention  it  attracted  was  owing  to  its  being  a 
special  copy. 

It  does  not  follow  from  this  that  the  Mosaic 
law-book  mentioned  by  the  Books  of  Kings  con- 
tained nothing  but  the  Deuteronomic  legislation  ; 
much  less  does  it  follow  that  no  other  Mosaic 
writings  than  Deuteronomy  were  in  existence  in 
those  times.  On  the  supposition  that  the  writers 
of  Kings  knew  of  the  priestly  legislation,  and 
regarded  it  as  a  part  of  the  written  law  of  Moses, 
it  is  yet  not  surprising  that  they  should  chiefly 
have  in  mind  the  Deuteronomic  legislation  rather 


193  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

than  that  of  the  priest-code  ;  they  were  writing  the 
history  of  the  kings  and  of  the  people,  and  not 
that  of  the  priests. '  The  usage  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
and  Joshua  would  lead  us  to  infer  that  the  term 
law,  as  used  in  the  Books  of  Kings,  commonly 
includes  a  large  body  of  sacred  writings  besides 
Deuteronomy,  and  notably  most  or  all  the  contents 
of  the  Pentateuch.  This  remains  true,  even  if  it 
is  also  true  that  in  some  passages  (2  Ki.  xvii.  13 
e.g.)  the  term  law,  instead  of  denoting  a  book,  is 
merely  a  general  description  of  messages  brought 
from  Jehovah  by  the  prophets;  for  the  prophets 
regarded  Moses  as  a  prophet,  and  the  messages  he 
brought  from  Jehovah  as  a  part  of  the  aggregate 
of  prophetic  torah.  The  inference  that  the  writers 
of  Kings  recognized  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch 
than  Deuteronomy  as  Mosaic  writings  is  confirmed 
by  the  details  given  in  the  parallel  passages  in 
Chronicles. 

Certain  Phenomena  in  the  Books  of  Kings.  The 
absence  from  Kings  of  the  abundant  ceremonial 
details  given  in  Chronicles  is  sometimes  alleged, 
as  an  argument  from  silence,  in  proof  that  the 
ceremonial  laws  were  not  in  actual  existence  when 
the  Books  of  Kings  were  written.  Yet  no  one  would 
claim  that  this  silence  is  absolute.  Those  who  use 
this  argument  would  admit  the  existence  in  Kings 
of  a  large  number  of  references  to  matters  now 
recorded  in  those  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  which 
they  regard  as  of  later  date  than  Kings.  They 
would  account  for  these  partly  as  interpolations, 
and  partly  as  traces  of  usages  then  existing,  which 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  199 

were  afterward  incorporated  into  the  written  law. 
As  this  is  an  essay  and  not  a  volume,  we  have  no 
space  for  instances,  though  many  scores  of  instances 
might  be  gathered  from  the  forty-seven  chapters 
of  these  two  little  books.  Take  for  example  the 
Levitical  terms  used  in  the  account  of  Elijah's 
sacrifice  at  Carmel,  "cut  in  pieces,"  i  Ki.  xviii.  22, 23  ; 
"dress  the  bullock,"  23,  25,  etc.;  "the  going  up 
of  the  Minhhah,''  29,  36 ;  or  take  the  various  dis- 
tinctions of  sacrifices  and  the  account  of  the 
disposal  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  vessels  in  the 
early  part  of  Solomon's  reign,  i  Ki.  i.  39 ;  ii.  28,  29 ; 
viii.  1-9,  etc.  If  one  assumes  that  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch  were  written  later  than  the  Books  of 
Kings,  and  on  the  strength  of  that  assumption 
counts  all  the  passages  that  interfere  with  it  as 
interpolations,  he  will  of  course  not  feel  the  force 
of  this  evidence ;  but  antecedent  to  such  manipu- 
lation, these  books  by  many  instances  confirm  the 
inference  drawn  from  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  instead 
of  presenting  a  silence  contradicting  that  inference. 
The  confirmatory  instances  are  too  many  and  too 
marked  to  be  otherwise  explained. 

But  it  is  alleged  that  customs  described  in  the 
Books  of  Kings  are  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that 
the.  Deuteronomic  law  was  in  existence  before 
Josiah's  time,  or  the  priest-code  until  later.  Prob- 
ably the  strongest  instance  alleged  is  to  the  effect 
that  Elijah's  many  altars,  i  Ki.  xviii.  30  ;  xix.  10,  14, 
are  in  contradiction  with  the  Deuteronomic  law 
of  a  central  sanctuary.  This  will  best  be  met  later 
in  connection  with  similar  instances  mentioned  in 
the  earlier  books. 


200  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

In  fine,  the  Books  of  Kings  testify  to  precisely 
the  same  proposition  to  which  we  have  already 
found  the  other  books  testifying.  There  is  simply 
no  way  to  meet  the  testimony  but  by  alleging  it 
to  be  either  false  or  unhistorical.  The  fictional 
hypothesis  can  be  made  to  apply  to  a  part  of  this 
testimony  as  to  that  of  the  other  witnesses.  This 
hypothesis  is  like  a  rubber  band :  it  can  be 
stretched  almost  indefinitely,  but  the  more  you 
stretch  it  the  thinner  it  becomes.  Improbable  as 
it  is  when  applied  to  the  Pentateuchal  narratives 
and  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
it  is  yet  more  improbable  when  applied  to  the  rest 
of  the  biblical  history.  But  in  dealing  with  the 
Books  of  Kings  the  choice  of  the  anti-traditional 
critics  lies  between  this  and  direct  charges  of 
interpolation  or  of  positive  falsehood. 

THE    BOOKS   OF  JUDGES,    RUTH,   AND    FIRST   AND 
SECOND  SAMUEL. 

Here  is  the  stronghold  of  the  advocates  of  the 
late  origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  If  the  testimony 
we  have  been  examining  be  true,  then  the  Penta- 
teuchal writings  and  institutions  were  in  existence 
throughout  the  period  treated  of  in  Judges,  Ruth, 
and  Samuel ;  but  it  is  alleged  that  these  books 
contain  no  traces  of  them,  and  further,  that  the 
condition  of  things  they  actually  depict  is  such  as 
to  render  it  incredible  that  the  contents  of  our 
present  Mosaic  writings  had  then  ever  been  heard 
of.  As  these  conclusions  are  based  mainly  not  on 
the   testimony   of    the  writers,    but    on    certain 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  201 

phenomena  in  the  writings  that  offer  themselves 
directly  to  our  observation,  they  are  alleged  to  be 
more  credible  than  the  testimony  of  the  other 
books,  and  to  be  a  sufficient  refutation  of  that 
testimony. 

This  being  the  condition  of  the  argument,  we  do 
not  need  to  show  that  these  books  conclusively 
prove  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  we  do 
not  even  need  to  show  that  a  strong  probable  case 
in  its  favor  can  be  made  out  from  them  ;  yet 
further,  we  do  not  even  need  to  do  as  much  as  to 
prove  that  their  evidence  is  neutral — no  more 
against  our  proposition  than  for  it ;  if  we  can 
merely  show  that  their  evidence  is  not  strongly 
enough  against  our  proposition  to  be  decisive,  that 
is  all  that  can  be  required.  If  the  case  made  out 
by  our  opponents  from  these  books  is  anything 
less  than  this,  the  body  of  evidence  we  have  been 
examining  is  sufficient  to  prove  our  proposition ; 
all  the  phenomena  presented  in  these  earlier 
books  must  be  interpreted  by  it,  and  have  no 
weight  at  all  against  it. 

Defenders  of  the  traditional  view  need  not  feel 
called  upon  to  maintain  that  the  Mosaic  system 
as  a  whole  was  in  continual  and  complete  opera- 
tion from  Joshua  to  the  middle  years  of  David's 
reign ;  on  the  supposition  that  the  Mosaic  regula- 
tions were  in  existence,  their  consistent  observance 
was  impossible  in  such  circumstances  as  Israel  was 
in  during  much  of  the  reigns  of  the  judges  and 
of  Saul.  It  is  further  evident  that  some  of  the 
positive  usages  of  this  period  differed  more  or  less 


202  PinNTATETTCHAL    CRITICISM. 

from  those  described  in  the  Pentateuch;  the £-oel 
of  the  Book  of  Ruth,  for  example,  while  his 
functions  are  in  part  those  of  the  £^oel  of  Leviticus 
and  Numbers,  is  yet  in  some  respects  quite  dif- 
ferent from  the  latter.  On  the  other  hand,  those 
who  attack  the  traditional  view  admit  that  many 
institutions  mentioned  in  the  priest-code  and  the 
earlier  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  appear,  in  some 
shape,  in  the  times  of  the  judges  and  early  kings; 
from  their  point  of  view  nothing  can  be  more 
natural  than  this.  We  have  here,  they  say,  the 
rudimentary  institutions  that  afterward  ripened 
into  the  regulations  of  the  written  law. 

It  is  one  of  the  customary  allegations  of  the 
advocates  of  the  late  date  of  the  Pentateuch  that 
the  prophets  of  Jehovah  did  not  become  literary 
men  till  about  the  times  of  Amos,  somewhere 
about  800  B.C.  If  this  were  true  it  would  have 
weight  to  show  that  the  beginnings  of  the  written 
law  belong  to  that  period  ;  but  it  is  contradicted 
by  all  the  testimony  that  ascribes  writing  to  the 
times  of  Moses,  and  it  is  emphatically  contradicted 
by  the  Books  of  Judges  and  Samuel,  i  Sam.  x.  25  ; 
xxi.  13;  2  Sam.  i.  18;  viii.  16,  17;  Jud.  v.  14; 
viii.  14,  etc. 

It  is  one  of  the  often  repeated  assertions  in 
regard  to  these  books  that  they  never  so  much  as 
mention  the  torah.  They  use  the  noun  torah, 
however,  in  2  Sam.  vii.  19,  and  the  cognate  verb 
in  the  same  sense  with  the  noun,  Jud.  xiii.  8; 
I  Sam.  xii.  23. 

It  is  said  that  they  never  quote  from  the  earlier 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  203 

books.  It  is  true  that  they  never  use  long  for- 
mulas of  quotation  like  those  used  in  Kings  and 
Chronicles  and  sometimes  in  the  New  Testament ; 
but  what  seem  to  be  verbal  citations  from  various 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch  are  very  common  in  them. 
In  the  following  example,  for  instance,  from 
Jud.  xi.  17-19,  the  parts  enclosed  in  single  commas 
are  verbally  from  the  account  in  Num.  xx.,  xxi., 
while  nearly  every  statement  of  Jephthah,  Jud.  xi. 
14-27,  comes  from  Numbers.  There  are  slight 
changes  in  some  of  the  verbal  citations. 

**  *  And  sent'  Israel  '  messengers  unto  the  king-  of  Edom,' 
to  say,  Met  me  pass,  pray,  through  thy  land.'  And  the 
king  of  Edom  did  not  hearken  ;  .  .  .  and  Israel  dwelt 
in  Kadesh.  And  he  M-ent  into  the  wilderness,  'a^ndwent 
around  the  land  of  Edom,'  and  the  land  of  Moab,  and 
entered  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  to  tiie  land  of  Moab, 
*  and  they  encamped  across  Arnon,'  and  entered  not 
within  the  border  of  Moab,  *  for  Arnon  is  the  border  of 
Moab.*  'And  Israel  sent  messengers  unto  Sihon  the  king 
of  the  Amorite,'  king  of  Heshbon  ;  and  Israel  said  to  him, 
*Let  us  pass  through  thy  land.'  " 

It  is  difficult  to  explain  this  in  any  other  way 
than  by  saying  that  Jephthah  possessed  and 
quoted  the  history  as  now  found  in  Numbers. 

Or  study  Jud.  ii.  1-3  : 

"And  the  angel  of  Jehovah  came  up  from  Gilgal  to 
Bochim,  and  said,  [Thus  said  Jehovah  toyou],  'I  will  bring 
you  up  from  Egypt,' and  *I  have  brought  you  into  the 
land  which  I  sware  to  your  fathers,'  and  I  have  said,  I  will 
'not  break  my  covenant  with  you'  *  forever,' and  as  for 
you,  *  ye  shall  not  make  a  covenant  with  the  inhabitants 
of  this  land  ...  Ye  shall  break  down  their  altars.' 
And  *  ye  have  not  hearkened  to  my  voice.'  What  is  this 
that  ye  have  done?     Now  also  I  say,  I  will  not  'expel 


204  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

them  from  before  you  ; '  '  and  they  shall  be  to  you  for 
[tliorns  in  j^our]  sides,'  'while  their  gods  shall  be  to  you 
for  a  snare.' " 

This  speech  of  the  angel  consists  of  nine  cita- 
tions from  different  parts  of  the  Hexateuch,  mostly 
the  phrases  that  are  often  repeated  there.  To 
recognize  the  form  of  the  citations  is  to  clear  up 
the  obscurity  of  the  passage.  On  the  face  of  It 
this  looks  like  a  very  distinct  recognition  of  such 
passages  as  Ex.  Hi.  17;  Deut.vl.io;  Lev.xxvl.44; 
Gen.  xvil.  7;  Ex.  xxxlv.  12,  13;  Deut.  xxvili.  62  ; 
Ex.  xxIII.  28;  Num.  xxxIII.  55  ;   Ex.  xxlil.  33. 

Similar  instances  are  to  be  found  in  2  Sam.  vii.  I, 
12,24;  in  I  Sam.  vili.  3,  5,  and  indeed  in  very 
many  places  in  these  books.  And  if  instances  of 
this  kind  be  accepted  as  establishing  the  fact  that 
these  books  presuppose  parts  of  the  Hexateuchal 
writings,  then  the  numerous  places  where  they 
mention  the  previous  history  and  the  Penta- 
teuchal institutions  may  all  be  adduced  as  showing 
the  extent  to  which  their  evidence  covers  the 
books  we  have.  For  example,  they  presuppose 
the  policy  of  exterminating  the  Canaanites, 
Judges  i.  28,  etc.  ;  the  history  of  the  various 
Israelite  tribes,  and  of  the  settlement  under 
Joshua  ;  the  coming  out  of  Egypt  and  the  accom- 
panying miracles,  Jud.  vi.  8-10;  x.  1 1  ;  xix.  30. 
I  Sam.  iv.  8,  etc. ;  the  descent  into  Egypt, 
I  Sam.  xii.  8 ;  the  accounts  of  Esau,  Moab, 
Ammon,  Rachel,  Leah,  Pharez,  Tamar,  etc., 
Jud.  xi.  17-20;  Ruth  iv.  11,  12-18  ;  the  biography 
of  Moses  and  Aaron,  i  Sam.  xii.  8,  etc. ;  the  wars 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  205 

of  Moses  and  Joshua,  Jud.  x.  ii,  etc.  ;  the  history 
of  Amalek,  i  Sam.  xv.,  especially  verses  2,  3,  cf. 
Deut.  XXV.  17-19;  Ex.  xvii. ;  Hobab  and  the 
Kenites,  i  Sam.  xv.  6 ;  Jud.  i.  16;  iv.  1 1  ;  cf. 
Num.  X.  29,  etc. ;  functions  of  the  gocl^  2  Sam. 
xiv.  1 1  ;  iii.  27 ;  Ruth  iv. ;  Nazirite  peculiarities, 
Jud.  xiii.  5;  I  Sam.  i.  11;  the  prohibition  of 
foreign  gods,  i  Sam.  vii.  3,  etc. ;  usages  respecting 
ceremonial  cleanness,   uncleanness,  and  holiness, 

1  Sam.  XX.  26  ;  xxi.  5  ;  religious  laws  against  the 
eating  of  blood,  I  Sam.  xiv.  32-34 ;  against  witch- 
craft, XV.  23 ;  xxviii.,  etc. ;  the  priestly  character 
of  the  Levites,  Jud.  xvii.,  etc. ;  that  the  ark  should 
be  carried   by  men,  and  moved   in   no   other  way^ 

2  Sam.  vi.  13  and  context.  The  Shiloh  sanctuary 
meets  the  Pentateuchal  requirements  in  the  fol. 
lowing  particulars,  and  perhaps  in  others  :  {a)  The 
tabernacle  was  there,  i  Sam.  ii.  22  ;  {b)  the  ark  was 
the  centre  of  its  sacredness ;  (<:)  it  was  served  by 
priests  descended  from  Aaron,  ii.  28  ;  {d')  the  only 
attendant  mentioned  is  the  Levite,  Samuel ;  (r)  it 
was  for  ''  all  Israel,"  ii.  14  (the  Hebrew),  22,  24,  28  ; 
iii.  20,  etc. ;  (/)  it  had  its  annual  festival  (whether 
more  than  one  the  narrative  does  not  say),  to 
which  Israelites  came  up,  i.  3,  7, 9,21  ;  ii.  19,  etc. ; 
(^)  the  festival  had  sacrifices  peculiar  to  it, 
1.  3,  21,  etc.;  (//)  its  solemnities  consisted  partly 
in  the  fact  that  they  ate  and  drank  in  Shiloh, 
i.  7, 9.  The  altar  service  described  in  these  books 
presents  the  following  points  of  agreement  with 
the  Pentateuch,  and  the  list  is  far  from  exhaustive  : 
{a)  the  existence  of  rigid  ceremonial   laws  which 


306  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

it  was  a  sin  to  neglect,  i  Sam.  ii.  29;  xiii.  11-13  ; 
2   Sam.  vi.  7,   etc.  ;    {b)  the  high   priest's  ephod, 

1  Sam.  ii.  28 ;  xiv.  3  ;  xxi.  9 ;  xxiii.  6  ;  {c)  the 
shewbread,  xxi.  6 ;  {d)  the  distinction  between 
sacrifices  for  certain  seasons  and  special  sacrifices, 
i.  21  ;  (r)  the  recognition  of  sacrifices  in  connec- 
tion with  vows,  i.  21  ;  (/)  the  distinction  of  burnt 
offerings,    peace    offerings,    etc.,    x.    8 ;     xiii.   9 ; 

2  Sam.  vi.  18,  etc. ;  {g)  the  technical  terms,  "■  make 
atonement,"  "  sacrifice,"  "  minhhah,"  i  Sam.  iii.  14, 
Heb. ;  (//)  the  burning  of  the  fat  on  the  altar, 
ii.  15;  (z)  the  offering  of  meal  and  wine  along 
with  an  animal  victim,  i.  24 ;  (7)  the  irregularities 
of  Eli's  sons,  ii.  13-17,  which  consisted  partly  in 
the  use  made  of  the  "  flesh-hook,"  an  instrument 
unknown  to  the  Pentateuch,  and  partly  in  the 
priest's  claiming  his  fee  before  the  fat  was  burned, 
contrary  to  Lev.  vii.  29-34.  Throughout  these 
books  such  instances  abound.  Certainly  they 
mention  as  many  particulars  in  the  Levitical  laws 
as  could  be  expected,  on  the  supposition  that 
these  laws  then  existed,  and  their  silence  in  regard 
to  other  particulars  can  hardly  be  regarded  as 
significant. 

But  it  is  alleged  that  in  the  instances  given 
and  in  many  other  instances  these  books  mention, 
sometimes  with  expressed  or  implied  approval, 
usages  differing  from  those  of  the  Pentateuchal 
law.  For  instance,  it  is  alleged  that  the  sanctuary 
at  Shiloh  was  (not  the  tabernacle,  but)  a  temple, 
with  doorposts,  doors,  and  sleeping  apartments ; 
but  the  sanctuary  might  be  a  temple  and  yet  have 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  207 

the  tabernacle  within  its  precincts,  with  no  roof 
over  the  ark  save  its  curtains,  i  Sam.  ii.  22  ; 
2  Sam.  vii.  6.  It  is  alleged  that  in  several  of  the 
accounts  of  sacrifices  no  priest  was  present ;  the 
correct  statement  would  be  that  the  presence 
of  a  priest  is  not  mentioned ;  there  is  no  proof  in 
these  cases  that  a  properly  qualified  Levitical 
priest  was  not  present,  or  that  even  Samuel  ever 
performed  a  distinctive  priestly  act.  It  is  al- 
leged that  the  word  "  minhhah,"  i  Sam.  ii.  17,  29; 
iii.  14;  xxvi.  19,  means  "offering"  rather  than 
"  meal  offering ; "  that  not  the  high  priest  only, 
but  also  the  other  priests,  and  even  Samuel  and 
David,  wore  ephods,  xxii.  18  ;  ii.  18  ;  2  Sam.  vi.  14; 
that  Hannah  offered  an  ephah  of  ''  meal "  with 
three  bulls,  instead  of  three-tenths  of  an  ephah  of 
"fine  flour"  for  each  bull,  i  Sam.  i.  24;  that  the 
Pentateuch  provides  for  no  drawing  of  water  and 
no  burnt  offering  of  a  sucking  lamb,  such  as  are 
described  in  i  Sam.  vii.  6,  9.  If  we  were  shut  up 
to  the  preternatural  rigidity  of  interpretation 
which  Christian  tradition,  in  its  zeal  to  magnify  the 
contrasting  liberty  of  the  gospel,  has  sometimes 
insisted  upon  as  belonging  to  the  old  covenant, 
some  of  these  points  might  be  difficult  to  explain  ; 
but  with  a  natural  common-sense  interpretation, 
reasonable  explanations  of  them  all  are  easy  to 
find. 

More  difficult  to  dispose  of,  on  the  traditional 
understanding  of  the  history  of  David,  are  such 
facts  as  the  priesthood  of  David's  sons,  2  Sam. 
viii.  18,  and  David's  attempt  to  move  the  ark  on  a 


208  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

new  cart,  2  Sam.  vi.  My  own  opinion  is  that  the 
revival  of  ceremonial  Mosaism  under  David  began 
after  the  completion  of  his  conquests,  and  of 
course  after  his  sin  and  repentance  (see  i  Chron. 
xiii.  5,  and  notes  in  The  Old  Testaine^it  Student 
for  Oct.  1887,  pp.  61-65),  ai^d  that  these  events 
are  to  be  explained  like  the  similar  shortcomings 
of  the  times  of  Saul. 

Chief  among  these  points  of  difficulty  is  the 
alleged  fact  that  Israel,  in  the  times  of  the  Judges 
and  of  David,  and  later,  in  the  times  of  Elijah, 
was  sacrificing  at  various  places,  and  not  at  one 
central  altar  only,  as  required  by  the  law  in 
Deut.  xii.  But  there  is  no  proof  that  some  of 
these  altars,  Saul's  altar,  for  example,  i  Sam. 
xiv.  35,  or  Gideon's  shrine  at  Ophrah,  were  re- 
garded as  legal.  Again,  there  is  no  proof  that  the 
sacrifices  at  Ramah  and  Bethlehem,  i  Sam. 
ix.  12,  13  ;  XX.  6,  and  others  like  them,  were  any- 
thing else  than  private  sacrificial  feasts,  such  as 
are  explicitly  provided  for  in  the  law,  Deut. 
xii.  15,  21.  Again,  it  cannot  be  proved  that  such 
sacrifices  as  those  of  I  Sam.  vi.  14,  15;  vii.  7  ;  x.  8 ; 
2  Sam.  vi.  13,  were  not,  within  the  meaning  of  the 
law,  sacrifices  at  the  central  sanctuaiy.  Finally,  the 
law  of  Deut.  xii.  is  conditioned  on  the  existence 
of  "  the  place  "  that  Jehovah  should  choose,  and  of 
"  rest "  from  Israel's  enemies  round  about ;  it  is 
the  often  reiterated  testimony  of  these  books  that 
these  conditions  were  but  imperfectly  in  existence 
during  the  period  from  Joshua  to  David.  In  such 
conditions,  as  in  the  conditions  in  which  Elijah 
lived,  the  law  was  in  abeyance. 


Historical  Books,  save  Chronicles.  209 

Evidently  these  books  contain  no  proof  of  the 
non-existence  of  the  Mosaic  writings  strong 
enough  to  overcome  the  testimony  of  the  other 
books.  On  the  contrary,  they  confirm  that  testi- 
mony. 


OUTLINE  OF  THE  ESSAY. 


1.  The  Obvious  Design  of  the  Books  of  Chronicles. 

2.  Their  Testimony  Touching  the  Mosaic  Legislation 

and  the  Levitical  Institutions  in  Direct  Conflict 
with  the  Recent  Critical  Theories  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. 

3.  Their  Testimony  Rejected  and  Pronounced  Untrust- 

worthy by  Critics. 

4.  Questions  of  Language,  Numbers,  Genealogies,  and 

Religious  Opinions. 

5.  Reproduction  of  Addresses  and  Hymns. 

6.  Alleged  Self-contradiction. 

7.  Alleged  Discrepancies. 

(a)  2  Chron.  i.  3-6. 

(6)  2  Chron.  ii.  2-15. 

(c)  Wellhausen's  Treatment  of  1  Chron.  x.  and  xi. 

8.  Alleged  Improper  Omissions  of  Facts. 

9.  Additions  Alleged  to  be  Unhistorical. 

(a)  A(!C0unts  of  Miraculous  Events. 
(5)  List  of  Warriors  in  1  Chron.  xii. 
(c)  Additions  Concerning  Rehoboam,  Shishak,  and 

Zerah. 
(c?)  Manasseh's  Captivity  and  Repentance. 
(e)  Prominence  of  the  Levites  in  the  History. 
(/)  David's  Plans  and  Preparations  for  the  Temple. 

10.     Untrustworthy  Character  of  Chronicles  Not  Proven. 


CHRONICLES  AND   THE   MOSAIC 
LEGISLATION. 

BY  PROF.   MILTON  S,   TERRY,  D.D.,  GARRETT  BIBLICAL  INSTITUTE, 
EVANSTON,   ILL. 

I.  The  Books  of  Chronicles  were  obviously  de- 
signed to  furnish  the  Jewish  people  a  record  of 
their  national  history  from  its  beginning  to  the 
time  of  their  return  from  the  Babylonian  exile. 
They  are  prefaced  by  a  collection  of  genealogies, 
but  the  more  detailed  narrative  begins  with  the 
reign  of  David,  under  whom  Jerusalem  became 
the  chosen  seat  of  the  national  government  and 
worship.  The  author  refers  to  seventeen  docu- 
mentary sources,  consisting  of  historical  annals, 
prophetical  monographs  and  commentaries  on  the 
same,  and  dwells  at  length  on  those  acts  of  David 
and  Solomon  which  tended  to  centralize  the  wor- 
ship of  Israel.  He  lived  some  time  after  the 
Babylonian  exile,  was  probably  a  priest,  and  aimed 
to  enhance  in  the  minds  of  his  readers  the  theo- 
cratic calling  of  the  Jewish  people  and  the  sacred 
character  of  their  institutions.  A  work  of  this 
kind  would  have  been  naturally  prompted  by  the 
circumstances  of  the  Jews  after  the  rebuilding  of 
the  temple  and  the  organization  of  the  returned 
exiles  at  Jerusalem.  Indeed  it  could  hardly  have 
been  otherwise  among  a  people  of  any  liter- 
ary activity  than  that  a  number  and  variety  of 


214  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

such  historical  narratives  should  have  been  pro- 
duced, and  those  which  obtained  greatest  cur- 
rency and  commanded  most  respect  would  sur- 
vive, while  the  less  important  and  useful  would 
fall  into  neglect  and  at  length  be  lost.  So,  too, 
the  sources  from  which  such  historical  narratives 
are  compiled  may  be  so  far  superseded  by  a  com- 
prehensive, convenient,  and  well-arranged  work  as 
to  be  of  no  further  practical  value  and  perish  from 
sheer  neglect.  What  care  ninety-nine  out  of  a 
hundred  readers  of  Gibbon's  ''Decline  and  Fall 
of  the  Roman  Empire  "  for  the  sources  whence  he 
drew? 

2.  In  the  recent  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  it 
has  been  seen  that  the  Books  of  Chronicles  are 
irreconcilably  adverse  to  the  theory  which  denies 
the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Levitical  legislation,  and 
finds  it  in  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  exile  and  later. 
There  is  no  possible  way  for  critics  who  adopt  this 
theory  to  escape  the  opposing  testimony  of  the 
writer  of  Chronicles  except  by  destroying  his 
credibility.  For  his  testimony  to  the  antiquity  of 
the  Aaronic  priesthood  and  the  existence  of  the 
Levitical  laws  during  the  period  of  monarchy  is 
not  limited  to  a  few  incidental  allusions,  or  to 
exceptional  passages  which  may  be  rejected  as 
interpolations  of  a  later  hand.  It  is  interwoven 
with  his  entire  narrative,  and  cannot  be  separated 
without  destroying  the  whole.  He  has  mani- 
festly taken  much  pains  to  compile  an  accurate 
genealogy  of  the  great  families  of  the  tribe  of 
Levi  (i  Chron.  vi.).     He   everywhere  recognizes 


Chronicles  and  Mosaic  Legislation.  215 

the  sons  of  Aaron  as  consecrated  for  the  services 
of  the  altar  and  the  holy  places,  and  speaks  of 
this  arrangement  as  an  ordinance  of  Moses 
(vi.  49;  xxiii.  13;  xxiv.  19;  2  Chron.  xxvi.  18; 
XXXV.  14).  The  priests  and  Levites  had  their 
dwellings  among  the  other  tribes  (i  Chron.  vi.), 
and  after  the  secession  of  the  northern  provinces 
they  flocked  in  large  numbers  to  Jerusalem  as  to 
an  asylum  (2  Chron.  xi.  13,  14;  xiii.  9-12).  The 
Levites  figure  prominently  in  carrying  the  ark, 
and  are  regarded  as  the  only  proper  persons  for 
that  work  (i  Chron.  xv).  Uzziah  was  smitten 
with  leprosy  for  presumptuously  attempting  to 
offer  incense,  which  only  the  anointed  priests 
might  do  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  16-19).  In  I  Chron. 
xxiii.-xxvi.  we  have  a  detailed  account  of  the 
thorough  organization  and  classification  of  the 
priests  and  Levites  under  the  direction  of  David. 
Solomon  is  represented  as  carrying  out  these 
Levitical  customs  according  to  the  ordinances  of  his 
father  David  and  according  to  the  commandment 
of  Moses  (2  Chron.  viii.  12-16).  Under  Jehoshaphat 
the  Levites  and  the  priests  were  appointed  to  de- 
cide matters  of  controversy  among  the  people,  and 
the  high  priest  was  over  them  in  all  matters  per- 
taining to  the  service  of  Jehovah  (2  Chron.  xxi. 
8-1 1).  It  was  the  high  priest  Jehoiada  who,  with  the 
captains  and  Levites,  restored  Joash  to  the  throne 
(2  Chron.  xxiii.),  and  during  his  reign  observed 
certain  laws  "  that  Moses  the  servant  of  God  laid 
upon  Israel  in  the  wilderness"  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  9). 
The  great  reforms  effected  under  Hezekiah  and 


316  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Josiah  were  also  due  to  the  diligence  and  faith- 
fulness of  the  priests  and  Levites.  These  various 
testimonies  of  the  existence  and  thorough  organi- 
zation of  the  Levitical  priests,  taken  almost  at 
random  from  different  sections  of  Chronicles, 
show  beyond  controversy  that  to  the  writer's 
mind  the  Aaronic  priesthood  was  no  late 
development  of  the  time  of  his  nation's  exile. 
It  was  an  institution  old  as  the  days  of  Moses, 
and  the  royal  hand  of  David  had  secured  a 
more  systematic  arrangement  of  its  orders  and 
classes. 

3.  It  is  accordingly  evident  that  the  testimony 
of  Chronicles  is  overwhelming  against  the  new 
development  theory  of  the  Levitical  legislation. 
The  only  question  over  these  post-exilian  records 
is  one  of  credibility.  Has  the  compiler  furnished 
us  a  trustworthy  narrative  of  facts? 

To  this  question  a  considerable  number  of  critics 
answer,  No.  Colenso,*  following  Gramberg,t  ac- 
cuses the  Chronicler  of  intentional  and  system- 
atic working  over  the  older  records  so  as  to 
make  them  serve  the  interests  of  the  priests  and 
Levites.  He  charges  him  with  willful  departures 
from  the  truth  of  history,  and  does  not  hesitate 
to  set  aside,  as  unworthy  of  credit,  any  statements 
which  stand  opposed  to  his  own  theories  of  Jew- 


*  Lectures  on  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Moabite  Stone. 
London,  1873. 

f  Die  Chronik  nach  ihrem   geschichthchen  Character, 
und  ihrer  Glaubwiirdigkeit  neu  geprtift.     Halle,  1823. 


Chronicles  and  Mosaic  Legislation.  217 

ish  history.  But  Graf,"^  Kuenen,t  Wellhausen,:j: 
and  others  of  the  more  recent  critics,  while  regard- 
ing the  book  as  unhistorical,  and  even  in  parts 
purely  fictitious,  hold  that  the  author  should  not 
be  charged  with  intentional  forgery  or  conscious 
falsifying  of  history,  but  that  he  was  so  far  under 
the  influence  of  the  spirit  of  the  age  in  which  he 
lived  that  he  read  the  ideas  and  customs  of  his 
own  times  into  the  older  history  of  his  nation. 
His  production,  accordingly,  is  of  the  nature  of  a 
pious  fraud,  but  so  fully  in  harmony  with  the 
notions  of  the  time  that  no  one  would  then  have 
regarded  it  as  improper  or  untruthful. 

Our  desire  is  to  know  whether  these  records  are 
true  or  false.  It  is  no  ground  of  reasonable  com- 
plaint  that  an  annalist  like  the  writer  of  Chron- 
icles  adopted  some  special  phase  or  conception  of 
his  nation's  history,  and  selected  and  grouped  his 
subject-matter  accordingly.  So  long  as  he  ad- 
hered to  his  plan,  perverted  no  truth,  and  made 
no  misrepresentations,  we  are  bound  in  all  honesty 
and  honor  to  allow  him  his  own  chosen  method 
of  handling  his  theme.  But  if  he  has  deliberately 
coined  fictitious  genealogies,  and  pretended  to 
cite  a  dozen  or  more  written  sources  when  his 
only  authorities  were  our  present  books  of  Samuel 
and    Kings ;  if  he  has  willfully  written  down  as 


*  Die    geschichtlichea  Bucher    cles  Alten    Testaments. 
Leipzig,  1866. 
t  The  Religion  of  Israel.     London.     3  vols.     1882-3. 
X  Prolegomena  to  the  History  of  Israel.      Edinburgh, 

1885. 


218  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

sober  and  solemn  fact  what  never  had  existence 
except  in  his  own  fancy,  then  he  deserves  expos- 
ure and  severest  condemnation.  The  essentially- 
bad  character  of  such  a  fraud  forbids  our  calling 
it  "  pious ;"  it  was  rather  "  desperately  wicked." 

4.  The  limits  of  this  essay  will  not  permit  a  de- 
tailed examination  of  all  the  points  at  which  the 
Chronicler  is  said  to  be  in  error.  We  must  there- 
fore confine  ourselves  to  the  more  serious  allega- 
tions, and  if  we  find  that  they  are  insufficient  to 
disparage  the  credibility  of  these  post-exilian 
books  we  may  be  sure  that  the  smaller  difficulties 
are  capable  of  reasonable  explanation.  We  ac- 
cordingly pass  over  such  questions  of  minor  im- 
portance as  those  of  linguistic  peculiarities  and 
orthography.  Nor  is  it  necessary  here  to  examine 
the  charge  of  a  uniform  exaggeration  of  numbers, 
for  the  same  difficulty  meets  us  in  the  Books  of 
Samuel  and  Kings,  and  there  are  instances  in 
which  the  Chronicler  has  the  smaller  and  more 
probable  number  (comp.  I  Chron.  xi.  1 1  with  2 
Sam.  xxiii.  8  ;  i  Chron.  xxi.  12  with  2  Sam.  xxiv. 
13,  and  2  Chron.  ix.  25  with  i  Kings  v.  26).  The 
genealogies  are  a  field  for  endless  speculation  and 
confusion,  but  no  fair  critic  will  permit  questions 
so  complex  to  prejudice  him  against  our  author, 
It  appears  from  Ezra  ii.  62  and  Neh.  vii.  64  that 
great  effort  was  made  after  the  exile  to  trace  cor- 
rectly the  genealogy  of  the  people,  and  some  were 
unable  to  prove  their  tribal  lineage.  To  affirm 
that  the  Chronicler  has  invented  his  lists  of  names 
is  the  most  absurd  of  all  hypotheses.     We  know 


Chronicles  and  Mosaic  Legislation.  219 

that  there  are  many  ways  in  which  family  and 
tribe  registers  might  have  been  reckoned,  and 
numerous  apparent  discrepancies  might  be  very 
easily  reconciled  were  we  in  possession  of  all  the 
data  which  the  original  compiler  had  before  him. 
Similar  difficulties  exist  in  all  ancient  documents 
of  this  sort,  and  the  genealogies  of  Chronicles  will 
afford  no  good  ground  of  suspecting  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  author,  providing  the  more  seri- 
ous complaints  against  him  are  set  aside.  Nor 
need  we  linger  over  such  unreasonable  arguments 
as  that  the  writer  has  introduced  his  religious 
opinions  and  observations  in  connection  with  cer- 
tain parts  of  his  narrative.  For  why  should  he 
not  ?  In  what  way  does  it  disparage  his  account 
of  Saul's  death  to  observe  that  he  perished 
on  account  of  his  disobedience,  and  his  asking 
counsel  of  a  sorceress?  The  author  of  i  Samuel 
abundantly  teaches  the  same  thing.  And  when 
the  Chronicler  says  that  Satan  moved  David  to 
number  Israel  (i  Chron.  xxi.  i),  or  gives  a  peculiar 
reason  for  Solomon's  removing  his  Egyptian  wife 
''out  of  the  city  of  David"  (2  Chron.  viii.  11),  or 
observes  that  Ahaziah's  destruction  Avas  a  judg- 
ment of  God  (2  Chron.  xxii.  7),  we  fail  to  see  that 
such  observations  conflict  in  the  least  with  the 
credibility  of  his  narrative  touching  the  acts  of 
David,  Solomon,  or  Ahaziah.  Our  critics  extol 
Samuel  and  Kings  as  superior  historical  records 
in  comparison  with  Chronicles,  but  why  should 
not  the  notion  that  Saul  was  possessed  by  an  evil 
spirit  (i  Sam.  xvi.  14;  xviii.  10),  and  that  a  false 


230  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

spirit  went  forth  from  the  presence  of  Jehovah 
to  fill  the  mouths  of  Ahab's  prophets  with  lies 
(i  Kings  xxii.  19-23),  disparage  these  books  also, 
and  oblige  us  to  reject  their  testimony? 

5.  The  Chronicler  has  been  severely-  criticised 
for  attributing  to  David  and  others  addresses 
which  bear  evidences  of  being  his  own  compo- 
sition, and  for  putting  into  the  mouths  of  the 
Levites  of  David's  time  a  psalm  (i  Chron.  xvi. 
8-36)  which  is  composed  of  portions  of  three 
psalms  (xcvi. ;  cv.  1-15;  cvi.  i,  47,  48)  from  the 
fourth  book  of  the  Hebrew  Psalter.  On  questions 
of  this  kind  we  simply  appeal  to  the  common  cus- 
tom of  the  biblical  writers,  who  seem  not  to  have 
aimed  at  literal  transcription  of  such  matters,  but 
rather  reproduced  in  their  own  style  and  language 
the  substance  of  thought.  Other  historical  books 
besides  Chronicles  have  abundance  of  illustra- 
tions. One  has  but  to  compare  the  correspond- 
ence between  Solomon  and  Hiram  as  given  in 
I  Kings  v.,  2  Chron.  ii.,  and  Josephus'  "Antiqui- 
ties," viii.  2,  6,  to  see  with  what  freedom  Jewish 
writers  reported  matters  of  this  kind.  The  psalm 
of  I  Chron.  xvi.  is  most  naturally  explained  as  a 
free  reproduction  out  of  familiar  songs,  by  the 
writer  himself,  of  what  was  sung  on  the  occasion 
of  bringing  the  ark  into  Jerusalem.  The  psalms 
which  were  sung  on  such  an  important  occasion 
would  be  likely  to  become  widely  known,  and 
often  modified  by  the  hand  of  poetical  redactors. 
In  like  manner  such  an  address  as  that  of  David 
in  I  Chron.  xxix.  would  be  reported  with  even 


Chronicles  and  Mosaic  Legislation.  231 

greater  freedom  than  the  letters  of  Solomon  and 
Hiram,  or  the  speech  of  Rabshakeh  in  2  Kings 
xviii.  19  ff. 

6.  Of  the  self-contradictions  alleged  against  our 
author,  the  most  notable  is  that  of  2  Chron. 
XXXV.  18  as  compared  with  xxx.  26,  In  the  thir- 
tieth chapter  we  have  an  account  of  a  remarkable 
passover  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  and  at  verse  26 
it  is  said  that  "there  was  great  joy  in  Jerusalem; 
for  since  the  time  of  Solomon  the  son  of  David 
king  of  Israel  there  was  not  the  like  in  Jeru- 
salem." But  in  chapter  xxxv.  we  have  the  de- 
scription of  another  passover,  under  Josiah,  of 
which  it  is  written  (ver.  18) :  ''There  was  no  pass- 
over  like  to  that  kept  in  Israel  from  the  days  of 
Samuel  the  prophet ;  neither  did  any  of  the  kings 
of  Israel  keep  such  a  passover  as  Josiah  kept,  and 
the  priests,  and  the  Levites,  and  all  Judah  and 
Israel  that  were  present,  and  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem." 

Many  a  careful  and  critical  reader  might  go  re- 
peatedly over  these  passages  and  their  entire  con- 
nection, and  wonder  how  any  one  could  insist  on 
finding  a  self-contradiction  therein.  It  is  sufficient 
to  observe:  (i)  In  neither  passage  is  it  stated 
that  no  passover  had  been  observed  since  the  days 
of  Samuel.  (2)  If,  under  Hezekiah,  there  were 
held  a  passover  more  notable  than  any  since  the 
time  of  Solomon,  it  does  not  follow  that  Josiah,  a 
generation  later,  might  not  have  held  another  in 
many  respects  more  remarkable  than  that  of 
Hezekiah.     (3)  If,  however,  the  Chronicler  were 


223  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

mistaken  in  his  judgment  that  no  such  passover 
had  occurred  before,  it  would  not  be  sufficient 
ground  to  challenge  his  record  of  the  acts  of 
Hezekiah  and  Josiah.  The  events  of  their  time 
and  the  institutions  and  customs  of  that  period 
as  related  by  this  writer  cannot  fairly  be  called 
into  question  even  if  it  be  admitted  that  the  ex- 
pression of  such  opinions  is  a  fault. 

7.  We  pass  to  examine  some  of  the  more  serious 
allegations  of  irreconcilable  discrepancy  between 
parallel  narratives  of  Samuel  and  Kings.  One  of 
these  is  2  Chron.  i.  3-6  as  compared  with  i  Kings 
iii.  4. 

1  Kings  iii.  4:  **  And  the  king  went  to  Gibeon  to  sacri- 
fice til  ere ;  for  that  was  the  great  higli  place  :  a  thousand 
burnt  offerings  did  Solomon  offer  upon  that  altar." 

2  Chron.  i.  3-6  :  *'  So  Solomon,  and  all  the  congregation 
with  him,  went  to  the  high  place  that  was  at  Gibeon  ;  for 
there  was  the  tent  of  meeting  of  God,  which  Moses  the 
servant  of  the  Lord  had  made  in  the  wilderness.  But  the 
ark  of  God  had  David  brought  up  from  Kiriath-jearim  to 
the  place  that  David  had  prepared  for  it ;  for  be  had 
pitched  a  tent  for  it  at  Jerusalem.  Moreover  the  brasea 
altar,  that  Bezalel,  the  son  of  Uri,  the  son  of  Hur,  had 
made  was  tiiere  before  the  tabernacle  of  the  Lord :  and 
Solomon  and  the  congregation  sought  unto  it.  And  Sol- 
omon went  up  tliitiier  to  tlie  brasen  altar  before  the  Lord, 
which  was  at  the  tent  of  meeting,  and  offered  a  thousand 
burnt  offerings  upon  it." 

In  analyzing  these  different  statements  we  ob- 
serve:  (r)  That  both  affirm  Gibeon  to  have  been  a 
notable  high  place,  to  which  Solomon  went  up  to 
sacrifice,  and  offered  a  thousand  burnt  offerings 
upon  its  altar.  (2)  Chronicles  adds  that  all  the 
congregation  accompanied   the    king  to  Gibeon. 


Chronicles  and  Mosaic  Legislation.  233 

(3)  Chronicles  adds  that  David  had  conveyed  the 
ark  into  Jerusalem,  and  put  it  in  a  tent  which  he 
had  there  prepared  for  it.  This  same  fact  is  also 
afifirmed  in  2  Sam.  vi.  17.  (4)  Chronicles  adds 
further  that  the  tent  which  Moses  made  in  the 
wilderness,  and  the  brasen  altar  made  by  Bezalel 
(comp.  Exod.  XXXV.  30;  xxxviii.  i,  2),  were  at 
that  time  at  Gibeon. 

This  last  statement  troubles  the  negative  critics. 
*'  It  is  altogether  improbable,"  says  De  Wette, 
"  that  the  Mosaic  tent,  even  if  it  were  yet  in  ex- 
istence, would  have  been  brought  to  the  high 
place  of  Gibeon,  and  separated  from  the  ark  which 
had  been  set  up  at  Jerusalem."*  To  others,  how- 
ever, it  seems  no  more  improbable  than  that  the 
ark  should  have  been  left  for  twenty  years  in  the 
house  of  Abinadab  at  Kiriath-jearim,  and  not 
taken  back  to  its  place  in  Shiloh.  The  probabil- 
ities in  such  a  case  will  be  likely  to  shape  them- 
selves according  to  a  critic's  desire.  The  common 
and  very  reasonable  supposition,  supported  by 
I  Sam.  xxi.  1-9;  xxii.  18,  19,  and  these  statements 
in  Chronicles  (comp.  i  Chron.  xvi.  39  ;  xxi.  29), 
that  the  tabernacle  had  been  removed  from  Shiloh 
to  Nob,  and  from  thence  to  Gibeon,  is  rejected  by 
De  Wette  and  others  of  his  school  of  thought,  but 
evidently  for  no  better  reason  than  that  it  does 
not  accord  with  their  own  theories  of  Israelitish 
history.     But  it  is  doubted  whether  the  old   Mo- 

*Lehrbuchderhist.-krit.  Einleitung-,  p.  373.  Ed.Schrader, 
Berlin,  1869. 


224  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

saic  tent  were  yet  existing.  There  were,  accord- 
ing to  I  Kings  vi.  i  four  hundred  and  eighty  years 
between  the  Exodus  and  the  building  of  the  tem- 
ple. Was  it  possible  for  such  a  tabernacle  and  its 
sacred  vessels  to  endure  four  centuries?  Those 
who  have  admired  the  tapestries  of  Raphael,  now 
nearly  four  hundred  years  old,  and  like  to  remain 
as  many  centuries  more,  will  have  no  doubt  as  to 
the  possibilities  in  this  case ;  and  if  an  ordinary 
table  used  by  Luther  is  still  preserved  in  a  sound 
and  enduring  condition,  it  is  certainly  quite  pos- 
sible that  an  altar  of  acacia  wood,  overlaid  with 
brass,  might  have  lasted  five  hundred  years. 

But  the  more  recent  critics  reject  all  accounts 
of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  which  represent  it  as  the 
place  of  sacrifice.  With  them  it  is  a  fiction  of  post- 
exilian  writers,  and  modeled  after  the  plan  of 
Solomon's  temple.  All  the  account  of  boards 
and  curtains  and  holy  vessels,  detailed  with  such 
fullness  in  Exodus  xxv.-xxvii.,  is  the  invention  of 
some  priestly  writer,  who  desired  to  show  a  Mosaic 
oricrin  for  the  elaborate  cultus  of  later  times.  Of 
course  critics  who  have  gone  to  this  extreme  can- 
not accept  such  statements  as  are  found  in  2  Chron. 
i.  3-5,  and  they  accordingly  set  these  troublesome 
passages  aside  by  pronouncing  the  author  untrust- 
worthy. 

To  others,  however,  the  straightforward,  simple 
statements  of  the  Chronicler  are  very  much  more 
credible  than  the  hypothesis  of  these  critics.  The 
construction  of  a  tent  by  Moses,  with  furniture 
and  arrangements  like  that  described  in  Exodus 


Chronicles  and  Mosaic  Legislation.  225 

XXV.  ff.,  is  no  more  difficult  to  conceive  than  that 
Ezekiel  in  exile  planned  the  elaborate  structure 
described  in  the  closing  chapters  of  his  prophecy. 
That  all  the  principal  parts  of  such  a  tabernacle 
might  have  been  preserved  until  the  time  of  Solo- 
mon is  undeniable.  Structures  less  substantial 
have  remained  for  a  longer  period.  Add  to  these 
considerations,  which  sufficiently  answer  the  pos- 
sibilities and  probabilities  of  the  case,  the  fact  that 
in  the  Books  of  Judges  and  Samuel  we  have  posi- 
tive testimony  of  the  existence  of  a  building  cor- 
responding in  all  essentials  with  ^'  the  tent  of  meet- 
ing" mentioned  in  Chronicles.  Thus  in  Judges 
xviii.  31  we  read  of  the  house  of  God  which  was 
in  Shiloh,  and  according  to  chapter  xxi.  19  there 
was  ^'  a  feast  of  Jehovah  from  year  to  )'ear  "  in  that 
place.  In  the  first  two  chapters  of  I  Samuel  we 
find  that  pious  Israelites  were  wont  to  go  up 
annually  to  sacrifice  at  the  house  of  Jehovah  at 
Shiloh.  There  abode  the  high  priest  and  his  sons, 
descendants  of  Aaron,  to  whom  God  revealed 
himself  in  Egypt,  and  "chose  him  out  of  all  the 
tribes  of  Israel  to  be  my  priest,  to  go  up  unto  mine 
altar,  to  burn  incense,  to  wear  an  ephod  before 
me  "  (i  Sam.  ii.  28).  After  the  capture  of  the  ark 
by  the  Philistines,  and  its  consequent  separation 
from  the  house  of  God  at  Shiloh  (i  Sam.  iv.,  v.), 
the  worship  of  Israel  became  greatly  demoralized. 
David  attempted  a  thorough  reorganization,  but 
it  was  not  fully  accomplished  until  the  time  of 
Solomon.  In  view  of  all  these  things  we  submit 
that  there  is  no  good  ground  for  impeaching  the 


226  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

testimony  of  Chronicles  respecting  the  tabernacle 
and  worship  at  Gibeon. 

Another  example  of  discrepancy  between  Chron- 
icles and  the  older  books  is  thus  represented  by 
Graf: 

**  The  account  of  the  negotiations  between  Solomon  and 
Hiram  in  reference  to  the  building-  of  the  temple  (2  Chron. 
ii.  2-15)  is  only  a  free  working  over  of  the  narrative  of 
1  Kings  V.  15-25  (Eng.  ver.  1-10),  with  divers  inaccurate 
and  arbitrary  additions,  and  with  reminiscences  out  of 
other  places.  For  the  sake  of  enumerating  in  one  list  all 
the  costly  materials  to  be  used  for  the  temple  and  its  ves- 
sels, and  having  at  the  same  time  in  mind  the  description 
of  the  tabernacle  (Exod.  xxv.  ff.),  the  author  represents  the 
Tyrian  artist  Hiram  as  skillful,  not  only  in  working  all 
sorts  of  metals,  but  also  for  weaving,  carving  wood,  etc. 
(verse  13,  Eng.  ver.  14);  but  according  to  1  Kings  vii.  14 
and  his  works  as  enumerated  in  2  Chron.  iv.  11-16,  he  was 
only  a  worker  in  brass.  So,  too,  in  naming  all  species  of 
costly  wood  which  was  to  be  used  in  the  temple,  he  lets 
the  sandal  wood  (algum  trees)  come  from  Lebanon  (ver. 
7  (8)).  It  is  in  keeping  with  such  inaccuracy  when,  through 
a  slip  of  memory,  which  has  needlessly  occasioned  exposi- 
tors too  much  troublesome  and  artificial  effort  at  harmoniz- 
ing, he  makes  Hiram  the  son  of  a  woman  of  Dan  (ver.  13 
(14)),  whereas  according  to  1  Kings  vii.  14  he  was  the  son  of 
a  widow  of  Naphtali.  As  he,  however,  in  his  statement 
had  Exod,  xxxi.  2  ff.,  xxxv.  30  ff.  in  mind,  he  here  thought 
of  Oholiab  of  the  tribe  of  Dan  (Exod.  xxxi.  6,  xxxv.  34),  for 
evidently  at  verse  13  (Eng.  ver.  14)  the  passage  in  Exod. 
xxxv.  34,  35  was  floating  before  him.* 

That  the  compiler  of  Chronicles  has  freely 
worked  over  numerous  sources  of  information,  the 
Books  of  Kings  included,  is  simply  what  we  may 


*Die    geschichtlichen    Biicher    des    Alt.    Test.,   p.    127. 
Leipzig,  1866. 


Chronicles  anj>  Mosaic  Legislation.  227 

reasonably  suppose  every  annalist  would  do,  and 
what  this  writer  manifestly  assumes  to  do  when 
he  repeatedly  refers  us  to  his  authorities.  A  free 
handling  of  documentary  sources  need  not  be  a 
false  handling.  But  when  our  author  is  charged 
"with  many  inaccurate  and  arbitrary  additions," 
and  with  working  up  an  erroneous  description  by 
means  of  confused  reminiscences  of  other  persons 
and  events  belonging  to  an  entirely  different 
period,  we  demand  that  the  evidence  for  such  a 
grave  attack  be  something  besides  capricious 
fancies.  Let  the  candid  reader  weigh  Graf's  speci- 
fications and  note  how  utterly  they  fail  to  sustain 
his  serious  charge. 

I.  The  Chronicler  must,  forsooth,  be  untrust- 
worthy because  he  represents  Hiram  as  competent 
to  work  in  stone  and  wood  and  woven  fabrics  as 
well  as  in  metals,  whereas  in  Kings  he  is  spoken 
of  as  only  a  worker  in  brass.  May  it  not  be 
equally  reasonable  to  believe  that  the  author  of 
Kings  is  here  at  fault,  and  has  not  done  justice  to 
Hiram  in  failing  to  mention  that  he  could  work  in 
other  material  besides  brass  ?  Observe  that  neither 
the  Chronicler  nor  the  author  of  Kings  essays  to 
write  a  history  of  the  life  and  works  of  the  artist 
Hiram  of  Tyre.  He  is  mentioned  incidentally  as 
the  famous  workman  employed  in  the  building  of 
the  temple.  Suppose  two  modern  writers  describe 
briefly,  in  a  sketch  of  the  IMiddle  Ages,  the  build- 
ing of  St.  Peter's  at  Rome.  One  mentions  the 
architect,  Michael  Angelo,  as  famous  for  his  works 
in  marble,  but  says  nothing  about  his  skill  in  paint- 


228  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

ing,  or  his  working  for  sixteen  months  on  a  bronze 
statue  of  JuHus,  or  his  appointment  to  rebuild  an 
ancient  bridge  across  the  Tiber ;  while  the  other, 
writinp;  some  time  after,  makes  mention  also  of 
these  and  other  works  of  the  great  artist.  Must 
the  later  writer  therefore  be  adjudged  guilty  of 
arbitrary  and  unauthorized  additions?  Our  critic 
observes  that  in  chapter  iv.  11-16  the  Chronicler 
himself  mentions  only  works  in  metal.  If,  there- 
fore, the  Chronicler  failed  to  realize  that  he 
had  contradicted  himself,  or  was  chargeable  with 
an  irreconcilable  discrepancy  in  his  own  narrative, 
it  is  only  a  captious  criticism  that  finds  here  an 
evidence  of  error.  It  is  certainly  probable  that 
one  who  was  skillful  in  working  all  that  is  men- 
tioned in  I  Kings  vii.  14  ff.  and  2  Chron.  iv.  1 1  ff. 
was  also  competent  to  w^ork  in  other  material  than 
metal. 

2.  But  how  could  the  artist's  mother  be  "  a 
woman  of  the  daughters  of  Dan"  and  also  "  a 
widow  Avoman  of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali  ?  "  Two 
very  reasonable  answers  have  often  been  given  to 
this  question.  She  may  have  been  a  native  of  the 
famous  city  Dan,  which  was  in  the  tribe  territory 
of  Naphtali,  and  not  very  far  from  Tyre ;  or,  what 
is  perhaps  a  better  view,  she  may  have  been  by 
birth  of  the  tribe  of  Dan  and  by  marriage  and  the 
loss  of  her  husband  a  widow  of  the  tribe  of  Naph- 
tali. Either  of  these  suppositions  touching  the 
mother  of  so  distinguished  a  person  as  the  archi- 
tect of  Solomon's  temple  seems  immeasurably 
more  commendable   than    that   the    writer    con- 


Chronicles  and  Mosaic  Legislation.  229 

founded  him  with  "  OhoHab,  the  son  of  Ahisa- 
mach,  of  the  tribe  of  Dan  "  (Exod.  xxxv.  34).  It  is 
as  easy  to  believe  that  he  could  confound  him  with 
Hiram,  king  of  Tyre. 

3.  The  bringing  of  sandal  wood  or  algum  trees 
*'  out  of  Lebanon,"  which  is  usually  regarded  as 
an  inaccuracy,  need  not  be  exalted  into  a  grave 
offense  against  truthfulness  when  it  is  remembered 
that  Hiram's  navy  brought  this  wood,  as  well  as 
gold  and  precious  stones,  from  Ophir  (i  Kings 
X.  II  ;  2  Chron.  ix.  10).  If  Hiram  had  carried  on 
no  commerce  with  Ophir,  and  none  of  its  sandal 
wood  came  to  the  Phoenician  ports,  there  would 
have  been  more  ground  to  complain  of  the  state- 
ment in  question.  But  if  this  wood  were  first 
brought  into  Hiram's  ports,  and  conveyed  thence 
along  with  the  cedar  and  cypress  of  Lebanon  to 
Joppa,  it  would  have  been  most  natural  to  mention 
it  as  the  Chronicler  has  done.  If  some  one  as 
skillful  as  our  modern  critics  had  of  old  called  the 
Chronicler's  attention  to  this  inaccuracy  he  would 
probably  have  considered  it  of  too  little  impor- 
tance to  change. 

Wellhausen  thinks  that  Graf  has  not  improved 
upon  De  Wette's  adverse  criticism  of  the  Books 
of  Chronicles.  He  holds  that  the  great  task  of 
such  criticism  "  is  not  to  collect  the  details  of 
evidence,  but  so  to  shape  the  superabundant  ma- 
terial   as   to   convey  a   right  total  impression."  * 


*  Prolegomena  to  the  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  172.     Edinburgh, 
1885. 


230  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

This  singular  principle  of  criticism,  as  practically 
illustrated  by  the  work  of  Wellhausen  himself, 
means  that  the  critic  must  not  cautiously  and 
soberly  inquire,  first,  if  there  be  any  irreconcilable 
discrepancy  between  Chronicles  and  the  older 
books,  but  must  so  "  shape  "  the  points  in  ques- 
tion as  always  to  put  the  Chronicler  in  a  bad  light. 
This,  of  course,  enables  him  to  transform  even  the 
slightest  differences  of  statement  and  all  abridg- 
ments of  old  narratives  into  deliberate  and  trans- 
parent mutilations  of  the  original  records.  That 
we  do  not  misrepresent  or  overstate  the  matter 
we  will  show  by  quoting  at  length  the  very  first 
example  which  Wellhausen  sets  for  shaping  ma- 
terial so  as  to  convey  a  right  impression: 

"After  Jehovah  had  slain  Saul  (so  begins  the  narrative 
of  Chronicles)  he  turned  the  kingdom  unto  David,  the  son 
of  Jesse.  All  Israel  gathered  themselves  unto  David  to 
Hebron,  and  anointed  him  king  over  Israel,  according  to 
the  word  of  Jehovah  by  Samuel  (1  Chron.  x.  1 ;  xi.  3). 
How  simply  and  smoothly,  and  wholly  without  human 
intervention,  according  to  this  version,  did  the  thing  come 
to  pass  !  Quite  otherwise  is  it  in  the  narrative  of  the  Book 
of  Samuel.  This  also  indeed  has  the  statement  of  Chron- 
icles word  for  word,  but  it  has  something  over  and  above 
which  gives  quite  a  different  aspect  to  the  matter.  Here 
David,  on  the  lowest  step  to  the  throne,  is  the  guerilla 
leader  in  the  wilderness  of  Judah,  who  is  finally  compelled 
by  Saul's  persecutions  to  pass  over  to  the  Philistine  terri- 
tory, there,  under  the  protection  of  the  enemies  of  his 
nation,  carrying  on  his  freebooter  life.  After  the  battle  of 
Gilboa  he  avails  himself  of  the  dissolution  of  the  kingdom 
to  set  up  a  separate  principality  in  the  south  as  a  vassal  of 
the  Philistines  ;  he  is  not  chosen,  but  comes  with  a  follow- 
ing six  hundred  strong  and  offers  himself  to  tlie  elders  of 
Judah,  whom  he  has  already  at  an  earlier  period  laid  under 


Chronicles  and  Mosaic  Legislation.  201 

oblig-ations  to  liini  by  various  favors  and  gifts.  In  tlie 
mean  time  Saul's  cousin  Abner  takes  over  wliat  of  the  king-- 
dom  there  is,  not  for  himself,  but  for  the  legitimate  heir 
Ishbaal;  from  Gilead,  whither  the  government  had  been 
transferred  after  the  great  catastrophe,  he  gradually  re- 
conquers the  territory  west  of  the  Jordan,  and  is  scheming 
how  to  recover  also  the  lost  Judah.  Tims  it  comes  to  pro- 
tracted struggles  between  Abner  and  David,  in  which 
fortune  is  most  on  the  side  of  the  latter,  yet  he  does  not 
leave  the  defensive  or  gain  the  sovereignty  over  Israel. 
That  falls  into  his  hands  rather  by  treachery.  Abner  him- 
self, indignant  at  the  ingratitude  of  his  royal  nephew,  offers 
the  crown  to  liis  rival,  and  enters  into  negotiations  with  him 
about  it ;  but  as  he  immediately  afterward  falls  a  victim  to 
blood  revenge,  nothing  comes  of  the  matter  until  Ishbaal 
is  privily  murdered  in  his  sleep  by  two  of  his  captains ; 
then  at  last  the  elders  of  Israel  come  to  Hebron,  and  David 
becomes  king  in  succession  to  Saul.  What  a  length  of 
time  these  affairs  demand,  how  natural  in  their  develop- 
ment, how  many  human  elements  mingle  in  their  course — 
cunning,  and  treachery,  and  battle,  and  murder  !  Chron- 
icles indeed  knows  them  all  well  enough,  as  is  clear  from 
incidental  expressions  in  chaps,  xi.  and  xii.,  but  they  are 
passed  over  in  silence.  Immediately  after  his  predecessor's 
death  the  son  of  Jesse  is  freely  chosen  by  all  Israel  to  be 
king,  according  to  the  word  of  Jehovah  by  Samuel.  The 
sequence  of  x.  13,  14,  xi.  1,  does  not  admit  of  being  under- 
stood in  any  other  way,  nor  is  it  in  point  of  fact  otherwise 
understood,  for  it  has  actually  been  successful,  at  least  to 
this  extent  that  the  kingship  of  Israel  has  virtually  dropped 
out  of  traditional  Bible  history;  after  Saul  came  David  is 
what  is  said.  We  have  before  us  a  deliberate  and  in  its 
motives  a  very  transparent  mutilation  of  the  origmal  nar- 
rative, as  preserved  for  us  in  the  Book  of  Samuel."  * 

The  unlearned  reader,  who  has  not  been  trained 
to    "  shape "    the    biblical   narratives    after   this 


*  Ibid.  pp.  172,  173. 


233  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

fashion,  will  be  amazed  at  this  example  of  the 
higher  criticism.  He  would  probably  never  before 
have  imagined,  even  from  the  brief  narrative  in  i 
Chron.  x.  and  xi.,  that  Jehovah  slew  Saul  and  turned 
over  the  kingdom  to  David,  "  wholly  without 
human  intervention."  He  would  probably  never 
have  supposed  that  the  Chronicler  himself  ex- 
pected to  be  so  understood.  But  being  so  informed 
he  would  naturally  revert  to  such  statements  in 
the  Book  of  Samuel  as  that  where  Saul  is  told : 
"  Jehovah  hath  rent  the  kingdom  of  Israel  from 
thee  this  day,  and  hath  given  it  to  a  neighbor  of 
thine  that  is  better  than  thou"  (i  Sam.  xv.  28). 
He  would  also  remember  that  according  to  the 
account  in  2  Samuel  ii.  David  did  not  '*  offer  him- 
self to  the  elders  of  Judah,"  nor  force  himself 
upon  them  on  the  ground  of  former  favors,  nor 
menace  them  with  a  shov/  of  six  hundred  warriors, 
but  was  directed  by  Jevohah  himself  to  go  up 
unto  Hebron.  Thither  the  men  of  Judah  came 
to  him  to  make  him  their  king  as  voluntarily  as 
did  all  the  other  tribes  at  a  later  time  (v.  i),  and 
there  is  nothing  in  the  older  records  anywhere  to 
warrant  the  statement  that  he  was  "  not  chosen." 
All  these  representations  of  the  matter  are  the 
product  of  the  critic's  power  to  ''  shape  "  the  con- 
tents of  old  records,  and  if  some  do  not  see  things 
in  the  same  way  they  must  be  classed  w^ith  "  critics 
who  are  unencumbered  either  by  prejudice  or  by 
knowledge  of  the  subject "  (Wellh.  Proleg.  Hist., 
p.  271).  These  must  learn  that  all  passages  in 
Samuel  or  Kings  which    breathe   the  theocratic 


Chronicles  and  Mosaic  Legislation.  233 

spirit  of  the  Chronicler  are  accretions  of  later 
times.  The  passages  above  cited  from  the  Books 
of  Samuel  which  teach  as  positively  as  Chronicles 
that  Jehovah  rejected  Saul  and  elevated  David  to 
the  throne  are  ruled  out  as  redactions  of  pro- 
phetical scribes,  who  aimed  to  shape  the  old  tra- 
ditions and  narratives  into  harmony  with  their 
notions  of  what  ought  to  have  been. 

A  consequence  of  the  Chronicler's  deliberate 
and  transparent  mutilation  of  original  narratives  is, 
"  that  the  kingship  of  Ishbaal  has  virtually  dropped 
out  of  traditional  Bible  history."  Such  a  ^'  suc- 
cessful" distortion  of  history  doubtless  would  de- 
serve severe  condemnation  were  it  not,  perhaps, 
unfair  to  demand  of  this  annalist  that  he  should 
detail  everything  he  knew.  He  has  deliberately 
''passed  over  in  silence"  David's  lament  for  Saul 
and  Jonathan,  his  kindness  to  Mephibosheth,  his 
adultery  and  blood-guiltiness  in  the  matter  of 
Uriah,  Nathan's  parable,  Absalom's  rebellion,  the 
defeated  counsel  of  Ahithopel,  and  his  consequent 
exasperation  and  suicide  —  all  these  and  many 
other  events,  which  simple-minded  readers  will  be 
surprised  to  learn,  have  ''virtually  dropped  out  of 
traditional  Bible  history."  So  far  from  having 
fallen  out,  they  are  among  the  most  familiar  things 
of  Bible  story,  and  it  may  be  doubted  if  an 
abridged  sketch  of  them  by  the  Chronicler  would 
have  added  one  whit  to  their  currency.  "  Chron- 
icles knows  them  all  well  enough,"  we  are  told, 
as  appears  from  incidental  expressions,  "  but  they 
are  passed  over  in  silence  ;"  hence  we  are  called 


234  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

upon  to  believe,  as  the  only  upright  conclusion, 
that  the  compiler  has  deliberately  mutilated  his 
sources  of  information  with  some  motive  to  mis- 
lead his  readers. 

With  a  criticism  which,  in  order  ''  to  convey  a 
right  total  impression,"  shapes  its  material  after 
this  method  the  unsophisticated  reader  will  find 
it  hardly  practicable  to  grapple.  He  needs  per- 
haps no  great  amount  of  learning  and  logical 
acumen  to  perceive  that  this  critic  creates  difficul- 
ties where  there  are  none,  perverts  the  import  of 
the  most  simple  and  transparent  narrative,  and 
arbitrarily  rejects  any  passage,  wherever  found, 
which  conflicts  with  his  theory  of  Israel's  history. 
Surely  one  may  be  pardoned  for  suggesting  that 
such  a  shaping  of  the  material  of  history  exhibits 
habits  and  motives  for  the  mutilation  of  ancient 
narratives  as  transparent  and  as  questionable  as 
any  to  be  found  in  Chronicles. 

8.  It  is  common  for  the  negative  critics  to  cen- 
sure the  writer  of  Chronicles  for  omitting  from  his 
narrative  facts  discreditable  to  David  and  other 
honored  kings.  No  mention  is  made  of  David's 
adultery,  and  the  death  of  Uriah,  and  Absalom's 
rebellion,  and  Hezekiah's  subserviency  to  Sen- 
nacherib, and  his  robbing  the  temple  to  meet  the 
demands  of  the  Assyrian  king,  and  other  things 
of  similar  character.  These  omissions  are  indeed 
noticeable,  and  doubtless  one  reason  for  them  is 
that  the  writer  did  not  take  pleasure  in  recalling 
them  or  giving  them  any  additional  notoriety. 
With  a  feeling  which  we   need    not  pronounce 


Chronicles  and  Mosaic  Legislation.  235 

blameworthy  he  preferred  to  pass  them  over  in 
silence.  So  a  Protestant  historian  of  the  Refor- 
mation, whose  object  was  not  to  chronicle  every 
detail  of  place  and  person  might  truthfully  extol 
the  work  of  John  Calvin  and  give  him  a  very 
large  place  in  his  narratives,  without  the  slightest 
allusion  to  the  matter  of  Servetus.  Such  an  omis- 
sion would  be  no  discredit  to  his  head  or  his  heart. 
Our  author  had  his  scope  and  plan,  which  did  not 
include  all  the  events  of  his  people's  history.  To 
assume  that  he  was  not  at  liberty  to  choose  one 
side  or  aspect  of  that  history,  select  and  group  his 
facts  accordingly,  and  omit  from  his  record  not 
only  what  did  not  comport  with  his  plan  but  what 
his  soul  took  no  delight  in,  is  to  deny  one  of  the 
most  obvious  rights  of  an  author.  To  assume 
further  that  such  omissions  forfeit  our  confidence 
in  the  truthfulness  of  what  he  does  record,  is  to 
erect  a  principle  of  criticism  which  cannot  long 
commend  itself  to  thoughtful  men. 

9.  More  serious  is  the  charge  that  our  author 
has  deliberately  recorded  as  facts  numerous  mat- 
ters which  are  destitute  of  historical  or  credible 
foundation.  It  is  strenuously  alleged  that  in  order 
to  promote  the  interests  of  the  Levitical  priest- 
hood he  has  perverted  the  statements  of  older 
narratives,  and  even  interpolated  mythical  stories. 

So  far  as  Chronicles  contains  accounts  of  the 
supernatural  or  the  mythical,  it  is  sufficient  for 
our  present  discussion  to  compare  them  with  sim- 
ilar elements  in  Samuel  and  Kings.  We  make  no 
attempt  here  to  maintain  the  possibility  or  the 


236  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

probability  of  the  biblical  miracles.  We  simply 
affirm  that  if  the  miraculous  events  recorded  in 
Chronicles  are  a  valid  reason  for  impeaching  the 
testimony  of  these  books  on  matters  not  miracu- 
lous, then  it  follows,  a  fortiori,  that  there  is  no 
valid  ground  for  accepting  any  of  the  narratives 
of  the  older  books,  for  every  faithful  reader  knows 
that  Samuel  and  Kings  contain  a  vastly  greater 
number  of  miraculous  tales  than  Chronicles.  But 
our  critics  without  exception  pronounce  the  former 
more  trustworthy  than  the  latter.  To  many  stu- 
dents of  this  criticism  there  appears  at  this  point 
a  capricious  inconsistency.  The  Chronicler  is  dis- 
paraged for  his  record  of  the  marvelous  destruc- 
tion of  Moab  and  Ammon  (2  Chron.  xx.),  and  of 
Jehovah's  answer  by  fire  from  heaven  upon  the 
sacrifices  of  David  and  Solomon  (i  Chron.  xxi.  26; 
2  Chron.  vii.  i),  and  these  are  the  examples  of  the 
mythical  commonly  complained  of  in  this  writer. 
Why  not  then  reject  Samuel  and  Kings  with  even 
heavier  condemnation  for  such  stories  as  God's 
word  to  Eli  by  a  little  child  (i  Sam.  iii.),  and  the 
plagues  which  the  ark  brought  to  the  Philistines 
and  their  idol  (v.),  and  Samuel  calling  the  thunder 
from  the  sky  (vii.),  and  his  communication  with 
Saul  through  the  witch  of  Endor  (xxviii.),  Jeho- 
vah's march  before  David  in  the  tops  of  the  mul- 
berry trees  (2  Sam.  v.  24),  and  all  the  marvelous 
acts  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  narrated  in  the  Books  of 
Kings?  It  does  not  help  the  matter  to  say  that 
all  these  miraculous  stories  are  indeed  rejected  by 
the  critics.     If  we  concede  that  they  were  all  in- 


Chronicles  and  MosxVic  Leqislation.  237 

serted  by  the  prophetical  redactor  of  these  older 
books,  they  nevertheless  formed  a  part  of  the 
record,  as  they  now  do,  when  the  Chronicler  com- 
piled his  narrative.  Why  then  disparage  the  lat- 
ter and  commend  the  former?  For  aught  that 
fair  criticism  can  demonstrate,  the  Chronicler  had 
at  command  and  used  as  trustworthy  sources  as 
any  of  the  authors  or  redactors  of  Samuel  and 
Kings. 

A  noteworthy  addition  of  Chronicles  is  the  list 
of  warriors  "  who  came  to  David  to  Ziklag  while 
he  yet  kept  himself  close  because  of  Saul  the  son 
of  Kish  "  (i  Chron.  xii.  1-22).  What  rational  ex- 
planation can  be  given  for  introducing,  without 
documentary  authority,  such  a  piece  as  this?  And 
how  unworthy  of  an  ingenuous  critic,  in  view  of 
the  contents  of  this  document,  to  imply  (as  does 
Wellhausen  in  his  ''  shaping  materials  so  as  to 
convey  a  right  total  impression,"  see  above),  that 
the  Chronicler  tried  to  conceal  the  fact  that  David 
was  for  a  long  time  an  outlaw  and  freebooter, 
driven  to  resort  to  the  Philistines  on  account  of 
the  persecution  of  the  son  of  Kish?  No  docu- 
ment embodied  in  the  Books  of  Samuel  or  Kings 
bears  better  internal  evidence  of  genuine  antiquity 
than  this  twelfth  chapter  of  First  Chronicles,  and 
nothing  but  the  most  reprehensible  partisan  plead- 
ing could  reject  its  statements  because  they  are 
not  extant  in  any  other  written  form.  In  the  doc- 
ument contained  in  verses  23-40  of  this  same 
chapter,  which  furnishes  a  detailed  enumeration 
of  the  "all  Israel  "  mentioned  in  chap.  xi.  i,  there 


238  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

appears  no  good  ground  to  question  the  substan- 
tial correctness  of  the  somewhat  surprising  num- 
bers given.  It  would  indeed  excite  more  sus- 
picion, as  Zockler  observes  (Lange,  Com.  in  loco),  if 
the  military  strength  of  the  tribes  had  been  more 
exactly  proportioned  to  data  found  in  the  Book 
of  Numbers. 

With  as  little  show  of  reason  can  one  contro- 
vert what  the  Chronicler  has  added  by  way  of 
supplement  to  Rehoboam's  history,  or  respecting 
the  number  and  nationality  of  Shishak's  forces,  or 
Abijah's  war  with  Jeroboam.  The  defeat  of  Zerah 
the  Ethiopian  by  Asa  accords  with  all  we  know  of 
the  times,  places  and  parties  referred  to.  That 
such  an  Ethiopian  warrior  advanced  into  Judah  to 
recapture  cities  which  Asa  had  been  fortifying 
(2  Chron.  xiv.  6,  comp.  xi.  8),  and  was  checked 
and  driven  backward  by  the  Jewish  forces,  is  far 
more  probable  than  that  the  Chronicler  would 
have  inserted  such  a  statement  if  it  had  no  foun- 
dation in  credible  history.  Jehoshaphat's  victory 
over  Moab  and  Ammon  receives  incidental  con- 
firmation in  the  prophecy  of  Joel  (iii.  11-14; 
Hebrew  text  iv.  i-ii). 

The  narrative  of  Manasseh's  captivity,  deporta- 
tion to  Babylon,  restoration  and  reforms,  has  been 
most  defiantly  pronounced  unhistorical.  For  why 
should  not  Kings  record  such  a  remarkable  fact? 
How  could  Jeremiah  have  spoken  as  he  does  in 
his  chap.  xv.  4  if  Manasseh  had  repented  and  de- 
stroyed the  idolatrous  altars  which  he  had  pre. 
viously  erected  ?    Why  is  not  the  king  of  Assyria 


Chronicles  and  Mosaic  Legislation.  239 

named,  and,  most  absurd  of  all,  why  should  the 
king  of  Assyria  take  Manasseh  to  Babylon  ?  Ques- 
tions like  these  were  formerly  put  with  an  air  of 
confident  triumph  by  adverse  critics,  And  the  en- 
tire story  was  rejected  as  blunderingly  apocryphal. 
But  how  utterly  overwhelming  the  answer  to  much 
of  this  when  Esarhaddon's  inscription  was  de- 
ciphered and  published  to  the  world  !  In  this  the 
son  of  Sennacherib  declares,  among  other  things : 
**  I  assembled  twenty-two  kings  of  the  land  of  Syria, 
and  of  the  seacoast  and  the  islands,  all  of  them,  and 
I  passed  them  in  review.  I  assembled  the  kings  of 
Syria  and  of  nations  beyond  the  sea  :  Baal,  king  of 
Tyre  ;  Manasseh,  king  of  Judah ;  Kadumukh,  king 
of  Edom ;  Mitzuri,  king  of  Moab,"  etc.*  It  ap- 
pears also  that  Esarhaddon  builded  a  palace  and 
actually  reigned  in  Babylon  for  many  years,  a  fact 
not  known  of  any  other  Assyrian  king.f  Ptolemy's 
canon  names  him  in  its  list  of  Babylonian  kings. 
But  so  far  as  the  Book  of  Kings  affords  us  any 
knowledge,  it  does  not  appear  that  any  king  of 
Assyria  disturbed  Judah  or  the  neighboring  states 
during  the  entire  period  of  Manasseh's  long  reign. 
We  ask  our  critics  in  turn  why  the  author  of 
Kings  has  failed  to  make  the  slightest  allusion  to 
such  an  important  fact  as  the  *'  assembling "  of 
Manasseh  along  with  other  captive  kings  before 
Esarhaddon?  Surely  the  Assyrian  inscription  puts 
that  fact  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt.     Pitiable 

*  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  iii.  pp.  107,  120. 
f Smith's  Diet,   of  the  Bible,  art.    Esarhaddon',    Raw- 
linson,  Hist.  Evidejices,  etc.,  p.  122;   Herod.,  vol.  i.  p.  483. 


240  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

is  Wellhausen's  attempt  to  disparage  the  bearing' 
of  the  inscription  on  the  question  here  at  issue 
{Proleg.  p.  207).  It  needed  no  mention  of  chains 
or  deportation,  or  what  was  done  with  the  thrones 
of  Judah  and  Tyre  and  Edom  and  Moab,  to  con- 
firm the  substantial  accuracy  of  the  Chronicler. 

The  silence  of  Kings  touching  Manasseh's  res- 
toration, and  the  reforms  attributed  to  him  in 
Chronicles,  no  more  discredits  these  statements 
than  it  does  the  fact  of  his  capture  by  the  forces 
of  Esarhaddon.  If  we  accept  the  latter  it  would 
be  arbitrary  and  capricious  to  reject  the  former. 
The  remarkable  confirmation  by  the  monuments 
of  what  before  seemed  so  inexplicable  goes  far  to 
put  an  estoppel  on  all  assumptions  based  upon 
the  silence  of  any  biblical  writer.  That  such  a 
man  as  Manasseh  should  have  been  suddenly 
humbled  by  captivity,  and  upon  restoration  to  his 
capital  should  have  done  the  things  ascribed  to 
him  in  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  14-16,  is  in  itself  by  no 
means  improbable.  These  things  might  all  have 
taken  place  in  so  short  a  time  and  have  accom- 
plished so  little  in  checking  the  prevailing  idolatry 
of  the  age,  and  withal  have  amounted  to  so  little 
in  changing  the  general  character  and  effect  of 
Manasseh's  reign,  that  the  writer  of  Kings  had 
reason  to  pass  them  over  in  silence."^ 

But  that  which  more  than  anything  else  stands 


*  For  other  considerations  in  favor  of  the  credibility  of 
Manasseh's  captivity  and  conversion,  in  reply  to  Graf's 
hypercriticism,  see  Gerlach's  article  in  the  Studien  und 
Kritiken  of  1861,  page  503  fif. 


Chronicles  and  Mosaic  Legislation.  241 

in  the  way  of  the  new  critics  is  the  prominence 
which  the  Chronicler  gives  to  the  Levites.  They 
figure  notably  in  the  bringing  of  the  ark  into 
Jerusalem  ;  they  are  numbered  and  classified  by 
David  and  arranged  into  twenty-four  houses  of 
Levites  (i  Chron.  xxiii.),  twenty-four  courses  of 
priests  (chap,  xxiv.),  and  as  many  classes  of  singers 
(chap.  XXV.).  The  porters  were  also  arranged  in 
several  divisions  according  to  the  gates  (chap, 
xxvi.),  and  there  was  a  similar  organization 
of  the  military  and  civil  officers  of  the  realm 
(chap,  xxvii.).  David  is  also  said  to  have  collected 
a  great  abundance  of  material,  including  various 
spoils  amassed  from  the  time  of  Samuel  (chap. 
xxvi.  20-28),  which  was  set  apart  for  the  house  of 
Jehovah,  and  he  enjoined  Solomon  his  son  to 
build  the  temple,  showing  that  he  himself  had 
been  restrained  from  so  doing,  and  in  an  assembly 
of  the  chief  men  of  the  kingdom  he  submitted 
plans  for  the  building,  and  said  many  things 
befitting  such  an  occasion  (chap,  xxviii.-xxix.). 

All  sorts  of  objections  to  these  statements  have 
been  raised  and  most  explicit  denials  have  been 
made ;  yet  there  they  stand,  so  simple  and  reason- 
able in  themselves  and  without  any  essential  con- 
flict with  other  written  accounts  that  it  is  evident 
to  every  unbiased  student  that  nothing  but  the 
exigencies  of  a  preconceived  hypothesis  of  Israel's 
history  leads  to  their  rejection. 

For  consider  a  moment  the  method  of  Well- 
hausen  in  so  shaping  the  account  of  the  bringing 
of  the  ark  into  Jerusalem  as  to  convey  a  certain 


243  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

''  total  impression."  In  2  Sam.  vi.  we  are  told 
that  David  gathered  a  vast  host  of  the  Israelites 
to  bring  up  the  ark  from  the  house  of  Abinadab, 
where  it  had  remained  for  many  years  (comp. 
I  Sam.  vii.  i,  2).  The  offense  of  Uzzah  occa- 
sioned its  being  carried  aside  and  left  in  the  house 
of  Obed-edom  three  months,  ''and  Jehovah 
blessed  Obed-edom  and  all  his  house.  And  it 
was  told  King  David,  saying,  Jehovah  hath  blessed 
the  house  of  Obed-edom,  and  all  that  pertaineth 
unto  him,  because  of  the  ark  of  God.  And  David 
went  and  brought  up  the  ark  of  God  from  the 
house  of  Obed-edom  into  the  city  of  David  with 
joy.  And  it  was  so,  that  when  they  that  bare  the 
ark  of  Jehovah  had  gone  six  paces,  he  sacrificed 
an  ox  and  a  fatling  "  (2  Sam.  vi.  11-13).  Thus 
briefly  the  author  of  Samuel  tells  the  story,  but 
the  reader  must  carefully  peruse  i  Chron.  xiii.,  xv. 
and  xvi.  to  see  how  much  more  fully  the  Chron- 
icler records  the  details  of  this  joyful  event.  But 
observe  now  what  an  impression  these  variations 
make  on  Wellhausen : 

**  Chronicles  tells  that  Jehovah  blessed  the  house  of 
Obed-edom  (xiii.  14),  but  mentions  no  consequent  result ; 
again  the  cause  is  given  without  the  effect.  Another 
explanation  is  substituted  ;  David  perceived  that  the  dis- 
aster connected  with  the  removal  of  the  ark  was  due  to  the 
fact  of  its  not  having  been  carried  by  the  Levites  in  accord- 
ance with  tiie  law  ;  the  Levites  accordingly  were  made  to 
bear  it  and  no  harm  ensued  (xv.  2,  13-15).  This  is  in  com- 
plete and  manifest  contradiction  to  the  older  narrative, 
and  as  Chronicles  (chap,  xiii.)  copies  that  narrative  it  also 
(jontradicts  itself  (xiii.  10),  and  that  all  the  more  strikingly 
as  by  the  addition  in  xiii.  2  it  represents  the  accompanying 


Chronicles  and  MosArc  Legislation.  343 

clerg-y  as  tacitly  approving  the  carrying-  of  the  ark  on  the 
ox-cart."* 

The  only  trouble,  however,  with  this  critic  is 
the  presence  of  these  "clergy."  He  thinks  the 
author  of  Chronicles  "cannot  allow  anything  to 
happen  without  Levites."  He,  on  the  contrary, 
cannot  allow  anything  to  happen  with  them.  But 
we  opine  that  the  careful  reader,  who  is  not  anx- 
ious to  secure  the  "total  impression"  aimed  at 
by  this  negative  critic,  will  discover  no  contradic- 
tions in  the  narratives.  He  will  remember  that, 
according  to  the  writer  of  Samuel,  when  the  Phi- 
listines returned  the  ark  to  Israel,  the  Levites  were 
present  and  took  it  down  from  the  cart  (i  Sam. 
vi.  15);  and  why  might  not  the  same  "clergy" 
have  tacitly  approved  the  moving  of  it  into  Jeru- 
salem by  the  same  method?  After  the  disaster 
by  the  way,  how  perfectly  reasonable  that  they 
should  have  approved  another  method  ?  The  sac- 
rifices mentioned  in  2  Sam.  vi.  13  as  well  as  those 
in  I  Sam.  vi.  15  most  naturally  presuppose  some 
kind  of  officiating  priests,  and  as  the  Levites  are 
mentioned  in  the  one  instance,  we  may  without 
any  contradiction  or  inconsistency  suppose  that 
they  were  present  and  officiated  in  the  other. 
There  is  no  "  complete  and  manifest  contradic- 
tion "  anywhere  except  with  the  theory  of  the 
critics. 

As  for  the  Chronicler's  account  of  David's  ex- 
tensive preparations  for  the  temple,  his  organizing 
of  the  priests  and  Levites,  and  giving  plans  and 


*  Proleg.  to  the  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  176. 


244  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

counsels  to  Solomon  touching  the  building  of  the 
temple,  all  these  things,  if  not  explicitly  men- 
tioned, are  in  the  main  implied  in  the  older  nar- 
ratives of  Samuel  and  Kings.  According  to 
I  Sam.  vii.  David  proposed  to  build  a  magnificent 
temple  but  was  forbidden  by  the  word,  of  the 
Lord  through  Nathan.  He  was  assured,  however, 
that  his  son  should  build  the  house  of  God,  and 
perpetuate  his  kingdom  forever.  He  was  a  skillful 
musician,  a  thorough  organizer,  and  consummate 
chieftain  and  general,  and  brought  shields  of  gold 
which  he  captured  in  war  to  Jerusalem.  Solo- 
mon's classification  of  officers  was  in  its  general 
form  an  inheritance  received  from  his  father  David 
(comp.  2  Sam.  viii.  15-18  with  i  Kings  iv.  and  the 
corresponding  lists  in  i  Chron.  xxvi.,  xxvii.),  and 
David's  charge  to  Solomon  in  i  Kings  ii.  is  sim- 
ilar to  that  more  fully  given  in  i  Chron.  xxviii. 
and  xxix.  The  latter  supplements  but  in  no  way 
contradicts  the  former.  In  view  of  the  above  facts 
as  recorded  in  the  older  narratives  we  submit : 
(i)  That  after  the  profound  impression  made  upon 
David  by  the  word  of  God  through  Nathan,  it 
would  have  been  strange  if  he  had  not  interested 
himself  in  provisions  and  plans  for  the  future  tem- 
ple. His  setting  apart  the  accumulated  spoils  of 
his  kingdom  for  this  purpose  is  more  than  prob- 
able. (2)  It  is  highly  improbable  that  along  with 
such  counsels  as,  according  to  i  Kings  ii.,  David 
in  his  old  age  gave  his  son  and  successor,  he  failed 
ever  to  speak  to  him  and  his  princes  of  plans  for 
that  house  of  God  which  the  word  of  prophecy 


Chronicles  and  Mosaic  Legislation.  245 

had  assured  him  his  son  would  build.  (3)  In  view 
of  David's  military  genius  and  when  the  captains 
of  his  army  subordinate  to  Joab  were  so  thor- 
oughly organized  as  the  census  conducted  by  them 
implies  (2  Sam.  xxiv.),  it  is  not  probable  that  the 
ministers  of  the  sanctuary,  subordinate  to  Zadok 
and  Ahimelech,  were  left  without  classification 
and  arrangement. 

There  being  therefore  no  improbability  in  what 
the  Chronicler  has  added  to  the  older  narratives, 
we  are  not  at  liberty  to  reject  his  statements. 
Most  of  his  additions  touching  David's  provisions 
for  the  temple  and  organization  of  the  Levites 
are  implied  in  the  older  records. 

10.  We  have  now  briefly  reviewed  a  fair  num- 
ber and  variety  of  the  weightiest  objections  which 
have  been  urged  against  the  credibility  of  the 
Books  of  Chronicles.  Like  similar  arguments 
against  the  Gospel  records,  they  either  rest  upon 
false  assumptions  or  else  arise  from  unwarranted 
inferences.  Too  often  they- have  been  magnified 
and  falsely  colored  by  such  a  "shaping"  of  the 
material  as  we  have  seen  illustrated  by  Well- 
hausen.  But  there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why 
these  old  post-exilian  records  should  be  thus  dis- 
credited except  the  exigencies  of  a  critical  theory 
which  is  seen  to  fall  to  pieces  before  the  facts 
v/hich  they  relate. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  PROPHETICAL 
AND  POETICAL  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT  TO  THE    PENTATEUCH. 


BY  PReF.   HENRY  M.   HARMAN,   D.D. 


In  this  paper  we  shall  adduce  the  passages  in 
these  Books  that  refer  either  directly  or  indirectly 
to  the  Pentateuch  itself  or  to  its  institutions,  and 
discuss  them  as  fully  as  our  limits  will  allow.  We 
shall  first  take  up  the  Prophetic  Books,  beginning 
with  the  latest,  Malachi. 

The  date  of  the  ministry  of  this  prophet  is 
about  B.  C.  440,  as  is  manifest  from  internal  evi- 
dence, eighteen  years  after  Ezra  came  up  to  Jeru- 
salem from  Babylon,  so  that  whatever  references 
Malachi  makes  to  the  Mosaic  law  must  be  to  our 
present  Pentateuch.  In  i.  7,  12-14  he  censures  the 
offering  of  polluted  sacrifices  and  blind  and 
maimed  animals,  with  reference  to  Lev.  xxii.  22 
and  Deut.  xv.  21.  He  upbraids  them  for  not 
paying  tithes  (iii.  8-10),  in  reference  to  the  law  in 
Lev.  xxvii.  30;  Num.  xviii.  21,  and  to  Deut. 
xxvi.  12.  In  ii.  1-9  he  addresses  the  priests,  and 
declares :  "  My  covenant  was  with  him  [Levi]  of 
life  and  peace  .  .  .  but  ye  have  corrupted  the 
covenant  of  Levi."  Here  the  covenant  with 
Aaron  is  called  the  covenant  with  Levi,  the  tribal 
head,  in  which  there  is  a  reference  to  Exodus 
xxix.  9  :  "  And  the  priest's  office  shall  be  theirs 
[Aaron  and  his  sons']  for  a  perpetual  statute,"  and 


248  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

to  other  passages  in  the  Middle  Books  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch. The  language  of  Malachi  is  similar  to 
that  of  Deut.  xxxiii.  8,  9,  where  what  belongs  to 
Aaron  is  attributed  to  Levi. 

But  the  most  important  passage  is  Mai.  iv.  4 : 
"  Remember  ye  the  law  [Torah]  of  Moses  my  ser- 
vant, which  I  commanded  unto  him  in  Horeb  for 
all  Israel,  the  statutes  and  judgments."  In  Lev. 
xxvi.  46  it  is  stated :  "  These  are  the  statutes 
and  judgments  and  laws  which  the  Lord  made 
between  him  and  the  children  of  Israel  in  Mount 
Sinai  by  the  hand  of  Moses."  Sinai  seems  to  have 
been  a  prominent  peak  in  the  range  of  Horeb. 
This  legislation  embraced  all  the  laws  which  are 
found  in  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  and  perhaps  also 
in  the  first  part  of  Numbers,  as  the  departure  of 
the  Israelites  from  the  wilderness  does  not  occur 
until  we  reach  Num.  x.  13.  A  large  part  of  Num- 
bers is  historical,  and  Deuteronomy  is  largely  a 
repetition  and  reinforcement  of  previous  laws,  so 
that  the  legislation  at  Horeb  or  Sinai  was  the  first 
and  chief  legislation.  But  undoubtedly  Malachi 
refers  to  the  whole  Torah  or  law,  and  declares  it 
was  given  to  Moses  from  God.  He  does  not  say 
that  Moses  wrote  the  law,  though  there  can  be  no 
reasonable  doubt  that  he  believed  that  Moses  did, 
but  that  the  law  came  from  Moses.  But  according 
to  the  new  critical  school,  only  a  small  portion  of 
the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  at  most  can  have  origi- 
nated with  Moses,  and  a  very  large  part  is  the  work 
of  Ezra,  a  contemporary  of  Malachi,  so  that  laws 
and  regulations  introduced  in  his   own  age,  the 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  249 

prophet  and  teacher  believed,  came  from  Moses ! 
Or  did  Malachi  act  in  collusion  with  the  priests  to 
palm  upon  the  people  a  new  code?  Certainly 
not,  for  he  rebukes  the  priests. 

Haggai,  who  prophesied  about  B.  C.  520, 
when  the  Jews  were  rebuilding  the  temple,  refers 
to  the  present  Pentateuchal  law  in  the  following 
language  :  "  Ask  now  the  priests  concerning  the 
law  \ToraJi\,  saying,  If  one  bear  holy  flesh  in  the 
skirt  of  his  garment,  and  with  his  skirt  do  touch 
bread,  or  pottage,  or  wine,  or  oil,  or  any  meat,  shall 
it  be  holy  ?  And  the  priest  answered  and  said, 
No.  Then  said  Haggai,  If  one  that  is  unclean 
by  a  dead  body  touch  any  of  these,  shall  it  be  un- 
clean ?  And  the  priest  answered  and  said,  It  shall 
be  unclean  "  (ii.  11-13).  The  12th  verse  refers  to 
Lev.  vi.  2^^  where  it  is  stated,  *'  Whatsoever  shall 
touch  the  flesh  thereof  [the  sin  offering]  shall  be 
holy."  The  question  proposed  is.  Does  the  skirt 
containing  the  holy  flesh  render  holy  whatever  it 
touches,  just  as  the  holy  flesh  does?  Which  is 
answered  in  the  negative.  The  13th  verse  refers 
to  Num  xix.  11:  ''He  that  toucheth  the  dead 
body  of  any  man  shall  be  unclean,"  and  also  to 
verse  22  :  ''  Whatsoever  the  unclean  person  touch- 
eth shall  be  unclean."  In  chap.  ii.  17  there  is  a 
clear  reference  to  Deut.  xxviii.  22.  In  the  first 
passage  the  prophetic  curse  is,  "  He  will  smite  thee 
with  blasting  and  with  mildew,"  and  in  the  second 
is  its  fulfillment :  "  I  smote  you  with  blasting  and 
with  mildew."  In  both  passages  in  the  Hebrew 
the  verb  to  "  smite  "  and  the  two  nouns  "  blast- 


250  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

ing  "  and  ''mildew"  are  the  same.  In  i.  i,  12,  14; 
ii.  2,  4,  mention  is  made  of  Joshua  the  high 
priest^  who  is  always  associated  with  the  governor 
Zerubbabel. 

In  ZecJiariaJi,  who  prophesied  at  the  same  time 
as  Haggai,  we  find  references  to  the  feast  of  taber- 
nacles (xiv.  16,  18,  19),  according  to  the  law  in 
Lev.  xxiii.  34,  43,  and  Deut.  xvi.  13.  Joshua  tJie 
high  priest  is  mentioned  in  iii.  1,8;  vi.  11;  and  in 
iii.  5  the  mitre  upon  the  high  priest's  head  is 
designated  according  to  the  arrangement  in  Exod. 
xxxix.  28  ;  Lev.  viii.  9.  It  is  evident,  then,  that 
the  high  priesthood  was  not  the  contrivance  of 
Ezra.  In  Zech.  iv.  2  we  have  a  reference  to  the 
golden  candlestick  with  its  seven  branches,  ac- 
cording to  the  arrangement  in  Exod.  xxv.  37. 

Ezekiel,  who  lived  and  prophesied  in  Chaldea 
during  the  first  part  of  the  Babylonian  captivity, 
makes  many  references  to  the  Mosaic  laws,  and 
even  to  some  of  those  very  laws  which  the  new 
school  of  critics  contend  that  Ezra  or  the  prophet 
himself  wrote.  In  iv.  14  he  declares  :  ''  From  my 
youth  up  even  till  now  have  I  not  eaten  of  that 
which  dieth  of  itself,  or  is  torn  in  pieces;  neither 
came  there  abominable  flesh  into  my  mouth." 
Here  he  refers  to  the  precepts  in  the  Pentateuch: 
the  "torn"  in  Ex.  xxii.  31  ;  "that  which  dieth 
of  itself "  in  Lev.  xvii.  15;"  the  abominable  thing" 
in  Deut.  xiv.  3.  That  is,  he  had  observed  these 
prohibitions  from  about  B.  C.  575,  when  he  was 
but  a  child.  In  v.  6,  7  the  Israelites  are  repre- 
sented as  violating  the  judgments  and  statutes  of 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  251 

God — words  found  in  the  Pentateuch  to  express 
the  Almighty's  commands.  In  vii.  26  he  refers  to 
the  Mosaic  law :  ''  But  the  law  [Torah]  shall  per- 
ish from  the  priest."  In  xi.  12  God  declares: 
*' Ye  have  not  walked  in  my  statutes,  neither  exe- 
cuted my  judgments."  Also  in  verse  20  we  have 
"statutes"  and  ''ordinances."  In  chapter  xvi. 
38-40,  God  says  :  ''  I  will  judge  thee  as  women  that 
break  wedlock  and  shed  blood  are  judged  .  .  . 
they  shall  stone  thee  with  stones."  In  Lev.  xx. 
10  it  is  declared  that  the  adulteress  shall  be  put  to 
death,  but  the  manner  is  not  prescribed.  If,  there- 
fore, the  passage  in  Leviticus  is  later  than  the  one 
in  Ezekiel,  it  is  strange  that  the  kind  of  death  is 
left  indefinite.  In  Deut.  xxii.  21,  24,  unchaste 
maidens  in  certain  cases  are  to  be  stoned  to  death. 
In  xviii.  6,  it  is  said  respecting  the  righteous  man  : 
"  He  hath  not  come  near  to  a  menstruous  woman 
[in  reference  to  Lev.  xviii.  19]  ;  hath  restored  to 
the  debtor  his  pledge  .  .  .  hath  not  given  forth 
upon  usury  [verses  7,  8,  with  reference  to  Exod. 
xxii.  25,  26,  etc.]  .  .  .  hath  walked  in  my  stat- 
utes, and  hath  kept  my  judgments  to  deal  truly." 
In  XX.  10-15  God  makes  the  following  declara- 
tion :  "  Wherefore  I  caused  them  to  go  forth 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  brought  them  into 
the  wilderness.  And  I  gave  them  my  statutes 
and  showed  them  my  judgments,  which  if  a  man 
do,  he  shall  even  live  in  them.  Moreover,  also  I 
gave  them  my  sabbaths  .  .  .  the  house  of 
Israel  rebelled  against  me  in  the  wilderness:  they 
walked  not  in  my  statutes,  and  they  despised  my 


252  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

judgments  .  .  .  then  I  said  I  would  pour  out 
my  fury  upon  them  in  the  wilderness  to  consume 
them.  But  I  wrought  for  my  name's  sake  that  I 
should  not  be  polluted  before  the  heathen  in 
whose  sight  I  brought  them  out.  Yet  also  I 
lifted  up  my  hand  unto  them  in  the  wilderness, 
that  I  would  not  bring  them  into  the  land  which 
I  had  given  them,  flowing  with  milk  and  honey." 
This  very  important  declaration  was  made  in  the 
seventh  year  of  Jehoiachin's  captivity,  about  B.  C. 
593,  about  five  years  before  the  destruction  of  the 
first  temple  and  about  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
five  years  before  Ezra  came  to  Jerusalem  from 
Babylon. 

The  passage  affirms  that  God  gave  statutes  and 
judgments  to  the  Israelites  in  the  desert,  and  it 
makes  palpable  references  to  the  history  of  the 
Israelites  as  found  in  the  Middle  Books  of  the 
Pentateuch.  The  phrase,  ''  which,  if  a  man  do, 
he  shall  even  live  in  them,"  is  the  language  of 
Lev.  xviii.  5.  The  oath  that  the  children  of 
Israel  should  not  enter  the  land  of  Canaan,  but 
be  consumed  in  the  wilderness,  refers  to  Numbers 
xiv.  23,  28,  29.  Again  in  xx.  23  :  "I  lifted  up 
mine  hand  unto  them  also  in  the  wilderness  that, 
I  would  scatter  them  among  the  heathen,  and  dis- 
perse them  through  the  countries."  This  refers 
both  to  Lev.  xxvi.  33  and  Deut.  xxviii.  64.  For 
in  the  first  or  these  passages  zarah,  scatter,  is  used, 
and  hephits,  disperse,  in  the  second.  In  verse  42  the 
declaration,  "  Into  the  country  for  which  I  lifted 
up  mine  hand  to  give  it  to  your  fathers,"  there  is  a 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  253 

reference  to  Gen.  xv.  i8  ;  xvii.  8  ;  xxvi.  3  ;  xxviii.  13. 
*'  Her  priests  have  violated  my  law  and  have  pro- 
faned mine  holy  things.  They  have  put  no  differ- 
ence between  the  holy  and  profane,  neither  have 
they  showed  difference  between  the  unclean  and 
the  clean,  and  have  hid  their  eyes  from  my  sab- 
baths "  (xxii.  26).  Here  the  prophet  refers  to  the 
Torah  (law)  of  Moses,  doubtless,  and  to  the  pre- 
cepts found  in  Lev.  xxii.,  which  treats  of  things 
profane  and  holy,  unclean  and  clean.  ''  She 
poured  it  [the  blood]  upon  the  ground  "  (xxiv.  7), 
with  reference  to  the  precept  in  Lev.  xvii.  13, 
where  it  is  enjoined  to  pour  out  the  blood  and 
cover  it  with  dust.  In  the  command  to  Ezekiel 
not  to  exhibit  signs  of  grief,  the  head  is  not  to  be 
uncovered  and  the  lip  is  not  to  be  covered  (with 
hair)  (xxiv.  17-23),  with  reference  to  Lev.  x.  6; 
xiii.  45.  In  xxviii.  13  ;  xxxi.  9,  reference  is  made 
to  the  garden  of  Eden.  In  xxxiii.  15  the  restora- 
tion of  the  pledge  is  mentioned  with  reference  to 
the  precepts  in  the  Pentateuch.  In  xxxvi.  27, 
God's  "  statutes  and  judgments  "  are  referred  to, 
doubtless  those  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  verse  38 
the  "solemn  feasts  "  of  Jerusalem  are  mentioned, 
evidently  those  found  in  the  Pentateuch.  In  the 
rebuke  of  the  children  of  Israel,  the  prophet  de- 
clares that  they  have  brought  strangers  into  the 
sanctuary  of  God  "  to  pollute  it,  even  my  house, 
when  ye  offer  my  bread  [the  name  of  sacrifice  in 
Leviticus],  fat  and  the  blood,  and  they  have 
broken  my  covenant  because  of  all  your  abomina- 
tions.    And  ye  have  not  kept  the  charge  of  mine 


254  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

holy  things"  (xliv.  6-8)  (about  B.  C.  574).  In 
these  passages  the  reference  is  to  Lev.  xxi.  6-8  ; 
iii.  16;  xvii.  11,  where  the  bread  of  God  and  the 
fat  and  blood  of  sacrifice  are  mentioned.  These 
sacrifices  are  declared  by  Ezekiel  to  be  of  divine 
appointment. 

In  Ezekiel's  description  of  the  qualifications 
and  duties  of  the  future  priests  (xliv.  15-31)  we 
find  a  repetition  for  the  most  part  of  the  regula- 
tions of  the  Middle  Books  of  the  Pentateuch, 
which  proves  Ezekiel's  acquaintance  with  them. 
In  some  matters,  however,  Ezekiel  departs  from 
the  regulations  of  the  Pentateuch.  Nor  is  this  at 
all  strange  in  an  ideal  state  of  the  future,  in 
which  the  Levites  have  a  tract  of  land  nearly  fifty 
miles  by  twenty  (xlviii.  13):  Issachar  bordering 
on  Simeon  (verse  25)  and  Gad  on  Zebulon.  The 
city  has  twelve  gates.  All  these  descriptions  are 
contrary  to  the  geographical  relation  of  the  tribes^ 
and  in  contradiction  of  the  number  of  gates 
Jerusalem  had.  There  are  other  descriptions  of 
a  similar  unreal  character.  Can  any  one  suppose 
that  Ezekiel  was  ignorant  of  the  geography  and 
topography  of  Palestine?  If,  then,  some  of  his 
regulations  are  different  from  those  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, does  that  prove  his  ignorance  of  them  ? 
Certainly  the  returning  exiles  never  dreamed  of 
fashioning  their  commonwealth  after  the  idealistic 
plan  of  Ezekiel. 

The  Prophet  Jeremiah,  whose  ministry  extends 
from  B.  C.  629  to  589,  makes  many  references  to 
a  system  of  laws  manifestly  written  correspond- 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  255 

ing  to  those  of  our  Pentateuch.  In  ii.  8  the 
prophet  says :  "  The  priests  said  not,  Where  is 
the  Lord  ?  and  they  that  handle  the  law  [Torah] 
knew  me  not."  In  iii.  8  :  ''I  had  put  her 
[adulterous  Israel]  away  and  given  her  a  bill  of 
divorcement,"  is  a  reference  to  Deut.  xxiv.  3, 
where  a  man,  under  given  circumstances,  may 
give  his  wife  a  bill  of  divorcement  and  dismiss 
her.  *'  I  beheld  the  earth,  and  lo,  it  was  with- 
out form  and  void "  (Thohu  vavohu,  iv.  23), 
v/hich  is  the  language  of  Gen.  i.  3,  and  shows 
that  the  prophet  had  before  him  the  EloJiistic 
account  of  creation,  and  proves  the  falsity  of  the 
theory  of  Graf  and  others  that  this  part  of  the 
Pentateuch  was  written  after  the  Captivity.  For 
it  is  easy  to  see,  by  a  reference  to  the  context  in 
Jeremiah,  that  he  uses  the  passage  in  an  accom- 
modated sense,  and  that  it  is  not  original  with 
him.  ''  How  do  ye  say  we  are  wise,  and  the  law 
\ToraJi\  of  the  Lord  is  with  us?  Lo,  certainly  in 
vain  made  he  it ;  the  pen  of  the  scribes  [sophcrim^ 
copiers  of  the  law]  is  in  vain  "  (viii.  8).  However 
this  passage  be  translated  or  explained,  the 
reference  to  a  written  law  of  Jehovah  is  evident. 
"  They  have  forsaken  my  law  [Torah]  which  I  set 
before  them  "  (ix.  13).  '*  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God 
of  Israel,  Cursed  be  the  man  that  obeyeth  not  the 
words  of  this  covenant  which  I  commanded  your 
fathers  in  the  day  I  brought  them  forth  out  of- 
the  land  of  Egypt,  from  the  iron  furnace,  say- 
ing, Obey  my  voice,  and  do  them  according  to  all 
which   I   command  you     .     .     .     that  I  may  per- 


256  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

form  the  oath  which  I  have  sworn  unto  your 
fathers,  to  give  them  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and 
honey."  Here  Jeremiah  declares  that  God  gave 
commandments  to  the  children  of  Israel  when  he 
brought  them  out  of  Egypt.  He  thereupon 
commands  them  from  God:  ^*  Hear  ye  the  words 
of  this  covenant  and  do  them  "  (xi.  3-6),  clearly 
showing  that  he  regarded  the  Pentateuch  of  his 
day — at  least  its  commands — as  having  originated 
in  the  desert  during  the  forty  years'  wandering. 
Jehovah's  oath  to  the  patriarchs,  referred  to  by 
Jeremiah,  is  found  in  our  present  Pentateuch.  In 
XV.  10  the  prophet  declares  :  "  I  have  neither  lent 
on  usury,  nor  have  men  lent  to  me  on  usury," 
in  reference  to  the  various  precepts  in  the  Penta- 
teuch upon  this  subject.  They  shall  not  ^'  cut 
themselves  nor  make  themselves  bald  for  them  " 
(xvi.  6),  in  reference  to  the  precept  in  Lev.  xix. 
28;  Deut.  xiv.  I.  ''They  have  forsaken  me  and 
have  not  kept  my  law  \ToraJi\  "  (xvi.  11).  ''  For 
the  law  \_Torah']  shall  not  perish  from  the  priest" 
(xviii.  18).  In  xxxi.  5  it  is  said  :  ''The  planters 
shall  plant  vineyards  and  profane  them,"  which 
refers  to  Lev.  xix.  23,  where  it  is  enjoined  that 
when  the  Israelites  plant  any  kind  of  fruit  trees 
they  shall  not  eat  any  of  the  fruit  for  three  years. 
Hence,  to  profane  a  vineyard  is  to  eat  of  its  fruit. 
In  xxxi.  31-33  God  declares  that  he  will  make 
a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel  different 
from  the  one  he  made  with  them  when  he  brought 
them  up  out  of  Eg>^pt ;  that  this  new  covenant  he 
will  write  upon  their    hearts,  which  shows  that 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  357 

the  first  covenant  was  written  upon    something 
else. 

In  xxxii.  8,  Hanameel.  the  son  of  Jerenaiah's 
uncle,  addresses  the  prophet  respecting  a  field  in 
Anathoth  :  ''  The  right  of  inheritance  is  thine, 
buy  it  for  thyself."  This  passage  refers  to 
Lev.  XXV.  25.  "  If  thy  brother  be  waxen  poor 
and  hath  sold  away  a  part  of  his  possession,  and 
if  any  of  his  kin  come  to  redeem  it,  then  shall 
he  redeem  that  which  his  brother  sold." 

In  xxxiv.  13,  14,  God  declares  that  in  the  day 
he  brought  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt  he  made  a 
covenant  with  them,  saying,  "  At  the  end  of  seven 
years  let  ye  go  every  man  his  brother  a  Hebrew 
who  hath  been  sold  unto  thee ;  and  when  he 
hath  served  thee  six  years  thou  shalt  let  him  go 
free  from  thee."  This  law  is  found  in  Exod. 
xxi.  2;  Deut.  XV.  12.  It  is  declared,  as  we  have 
seen,  that  this  law  was  enacted  when  the  Israel- 
ites came  out  of  Egypt.  In  the  following  pas- 
sages there  is  reference  evidently  to  the  Mosaic 
law :  "  Neither  have  they  feared  nor  walked  in 
my  law,  nor  in  my  statutes  that  I  set  before  you 
and  before  your  fathers."  ''  Nor  walked  in  his 
law,  nor  in  his  statutes,  nor  in  his  testimonies  " 
xliv.  10,23).  "A  fire  and  a  flame  .  .  .  shall 
devour  the  corner  of  Moab  and  the  corner  of  the 
head  of  the  tumultuous  ones"  (xlviii.  45).  Ge- 
senius"^"  rightly  regards  this  passage  as  an  imitation 
of  Num.  xxiv.  17:  ''A  sceptre  shall  rise  out  of 
Israel  and  shall  smite  the  corners  of  Moab." 
*  Heb.  Lex.   XV^ ,  and  Com.  Sam.  Pent. 


258  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

But  notwithstanding  the  references  in  Jeremiah 
to  the  Mosaic  legislations  in  the  desert,  it  has 
been  contended  by  some  critics  that  he  did  not 
believe  in  the  divine  origin  of  the  sacrificial  sys- 
tem of  the  Pentateuch.  The  proof  text  is  the 
following:  ''Add  your  burnt-offerings  unto  your 
sacrifices  and  eat  )^e  flesh.  For  I  spake  not  unto 
your  fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in  the  day 
that  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt, 
concerning  burnt-offerings  or  sacrifices,  but  this 
thing  I  commanded  them,  saying.  Hearken  unto 
my  voice,  and  I  will  be  your  God  and  ye  shall 
be  my  people"  (vii.  21-23).  It  can  be  clearly 
shown  that  this  language  does  not  necessarily 
mean  that  God  absolutely  said  nothing  and  gave 
no  commandment  about  burnt-offerings  and  sacri- 
fices. In  Gen.  xlv.  8  Joseph  in  Egypt  tells  his 
brethren :  "  Ye  did  not  send  me  hither,  but 
God."  But  according  to  Gen.  xxxvii.  28  Joseph's 
brethren  sold  him  to  the  Ishmaelites  who  were 
going  into  Egypt.  Of  course  the  meaning  is  that 
Divine  Providence  had  arranged  his  coming  into 
Egypt.  In  the  same  manner,  in  Exod.  xvi.  8, 
Moses  says  to  the  Israelites,  ''  Your  murmurings 
are  not  against  us,  but  against  the  Lord  ;"  yet  in 
the  second  verse  of  this  very  chapter  it  is  said, 
*' The  whole  congregation  murmured  against 
Moses  and  Aaron."  Similar  is  the  language  of 
I  Sam.  viii.  7,  where  God  says  to  Samuel  when  the 
Israelites  demanded  a  king,  ''  They  have  not  re- 
jected thee,  but  they  have  rejected  me,  that  I 
should  not  reign  over  them."     But  in  fact  they 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  259 

had  rejected  Samuel.  A  similar  passage  is  also 
found  in  2  Chron.xx.  15.  There  are  passages  also 
in  the  New  Testament  of  a  similar  nature.  The 
Apostle  Paul  declares  that  "  Christ  sent  me  not 
to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel  "  (i  Cor.  i.  17). 
We  might  infer  from  this  not  only  that  Paul  never 
baptized,  but  also  that  in  his  judgment  baptism  is 
not  a  Christian  ordinance.  But  he  himself  tells 
us  that  he  baptized  several  persons  (i  Cor.  i.  14- 
16).  Again,  in  i  Cor.  ii.  2  he  says,  ''  I  determined 
not  to  know  any  thing  among  you  save  Jesus 
Christ  and  him  crucified,"  which  cannot  be  taken 
in  an  absolute  sense,  nor  can  the  language  of 
Christ,  *'In  secret  have  I  said  nothing"  (John 
xviii.  20). 

The  passage  in  chapter  vii.  of  Jeremiah,  under 
discussion,  shows  in  the  most  striking  manner  the 
superiority  of  obedience  to  the  divine  commands 
to  sacrifices  and  burnt  offerings,  and  the  utter 
worthlessness,  and  even  hatefulness,  of  these 
forms,  when  those  who  offer  are  polluted  by 
crime.  In  the  ninth  verse  of  this  chapter  the 
prophet  asks,  ''  Will  ye  steal,  murder,  and  com- 
mit adultery,  and  burn  incense  unto  Baal,  and 
walk  after  other  gods  whom  ye  know  not ;  and 
come  and  stand  before  me  in  this  house?"  Also 
in  vi.  20  it  is  said:  "  Your  burnt  offerings  are  not 
acceptable,  nor  your  sacrifice  sweet  unto  me."  It 
is  in  the  same  spirit  that  Samuel  reproves  Saul : 
*'  Hath  the  Lord  delight  in  burnt  offerings  and 
sacrifices  as  in  obeying  the  voice  of  the  Lord  ? 
Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to 


260  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams."  Similar  is  Hosea: 
"  For  I  desired  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice."  This 
might  seem  an  absolute  rejection  of  sacrifice  ;  but 
the  second  clause  of  the  verse  weakens  its  force: 
"  And  the  knowledge  of  God  more  than  burnt  of- 
ferings "  (vi.  6). 

But  further,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  Jere- 
miah did  not  regard  as  Mosaic  the  sacrificial  and 
priestly  system  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  follow- 
ing passages  seem  to  make  this  matter  clear :  "  For 
thussaith  the  Lord  .  .  .  neither  shall  the  priests 
the  Levites  want  a  man  before  me  to  offer  burnt 
offerings,  and  to  kindle  meat  offerings,  and  to  do 
sacrifice  continually"  (Jer.  xxxiii.  17,  18);  and, 
"  Thus  saith  the  Lord.  If  ye  can  break  my  cove- 
nant of  the  day,  and  my  covenant  of  the  night 
.  .  .  then  may  also  my  covenant  be  broken  with 
David  "...  and  my  covenant  "  lait/i  the  Le- 
vites the  priests^  my  ministers''  (xxxiii.  20,  21). 
But  further,  it  is  acknowledged  by  our  new  criti- 
cal school  that  Deuteronomy  was  already  in  ex- 
istence in  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  and  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  it  was  recognized  by  him  who  was 
among  the  priests.  Now  sacrifices  and  burnt  of- 
ferings are  clearly  enjoined  in  Deuteronomy. 
Again,  in  Exodus  xx.  24-26,  standing  in  close 
connection  with  the  giving  of  the  lav/  from  Sinai, 
we  find  directions  respecting  the  sacrifices  they 
shall  make  to  God.  This  passage  is  manifestly 
the  oldest  precept  upon  sacrifice,  as  it  leaves  in 
definite  the  place  where  it  is  to  be  offered. 

In  Exodus  xxii.  20  it  is  said,  ''  He  that  sacri- 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  261 

ficeth  unto  any  god,  save  unto  the  Lord  only,  he 
shall  be  utterly  destroyed  ;  "  and  in  Exodus  xxiii. 
1 8  it  is  enjoined,  ''  Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood 
of  my  sacrifice  with  leavened  bread."  Now  our 
skeptical  critics  acknowledge  that  Exodus  xxi.- 
xxiii.  is  the  first  legislation.  Lastly,  it  seems 
utterly  incredible  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
that  Moses  should  have  said  nothing  about 
sacrifice. 

In  Zephaniah^  who  flourished  about  B.  C.  625, 
there  is  a  reference  to  the  Pentateuch  in  the  fol- 
lowing words:  "Her  [Jerusalem's]  priests  have 
polluted  the  sanctuary,  they  have  done  violence 
to  the  law  {Toralf^  "  (iii.  4). 

In  Habakkuk,  about  B.  C.  625,  the  Pentateuch 
is  referred  to  as  follows :  '*■  The  law  [  ToraJi\  is  tor- 
pid"(i.4.) 

In  Nahiun,  about  B.  C.  630,  we  find  the  follow- 
ing: "  O  Judah,  keep  thy  solemn  feasts,  perform 
thy  vows  "(i.  15).  This  language  implies  the  di- 
vine institution  of  the  Jewish  feasts,  and  probably 
refers  to  the  regulations  of  the  Pentateuch  re- 
specting vows. 

The  prophet  Micah,  who  prophesied  in  Judah 
B.  C.  750-725,  has  several  references  to  the  Pen- 
tateuch. In  V.  6  Assyria  is  coupled  with  the  land 
of  Nimrod  in  reference  to  Gen.  x.  8-12  ;  and  in 
vi.  5,  ''O  my  people,  remember  now  what  Balak 
king  of  Moab  consulted,  and  what  Balaam  the 
son  of  Beor  answered  him  from  Shittim  unto  Gil- 
gal,"  there  is  a  reference  to  Numbers  xxii-xxv.  i. 
*'  He  hath  showed  thee,  O   man,  what  is  good. 


263  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

and  what  doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to  do 
justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly 
with  thy  God  "  (vi.  8).  This  passage  seems  to  be 
based  upon  Deut.  x.  12,  ''And  now,  Israel,  what 
doth  the  Lord  thy  God  require  of  thee,  but  to 
fear  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  all  his  ways, 
and  to  love  him,  and  to  serve  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul." 

The  prophet  Isaiah,  who  flourished  in  Judah 
B.  C.  758-705,  makes  various  references  to  the 
Book  of  the  Law,  and  to  institutions  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch. In  i.  11-14,  we  find  named  ''sacri- 
fices," "burnt  offerings,"  "new  moons,"  "sab- 
baths," "  the  calling  of  assemblies,"  and  "  ap- 
pointed feasts."  It  is  true  that  the  Almighty  de- 
clares that  these  services  displease  him,  and  on 
this  ground  our  skeptical  critics  argue  that  sacri- 
fices were  not  a  divine  institution.  But  they  for- 
get that  their  logic  proves  that  the  Sabbath  also 
is  not  a  divine  institution,  which  certainly  proves 
too  much  and  therefore  proves  nothing.  God  de- 
clares that  he  will  not  hear  their  prayers  :  their 
hands  are  full  of  blood.  This  last  clause  explains 
the  rejection  of  the  sacrifices  and  the  outward 
services  of  the  Jews.  In  iii.  9  the  prophet  refers 
evidently  to  the  Pentateuchal  history :  "  They 
declare  their  sin  as  Sodom,  they  hide  it  not." 
"And  the  Lord  will  create  over  the  whole  habita- 
tion of  Mount  Zion,  and  over  her  assemblies,  a 
cloud  and  smoke  by  day  and  the  shining  of  a 
flaming  fire  by  night  "  (iv.  5).  Here  the  refer- 
ence is  to  "  the  pillar  of  a  cloud  "  that  guided  the 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  263 

Israelites  by  da}%  and  to  "  the  pillar  of  fire"  by 
night,  in  their  journeys  through  the  desert  (Exod. 
xiii.  2i),  and  which  also  rested  upon  the  taber- 
nacle (Ex.  xl.  38).  It  is  clear  from  the  nature  of 
the  case  that  the  passages  in  the  Pentateuch  are 
the  original.  ''  They  have  cast  away  the  law 
\ToraJL\  of  the  Lord  of  hosts  "  (v.  24).  "  Bind  up 
the  testimony,  seal  the  law  \Tora]i\  among  my 
disciples  "  (viii.  16).  ''  To  the  law  [  ToraJi\  and  to 
the  testimony"  (viii.  20).  In  these  three  pas- 
sages the  reference  is  doubtless  to  the  Mosaic 
law.  Again,  in  reference  doubtless  to  the  Penta- 
teuch, ''  They  have  transgressed  the  laws,  changed 
the  ordinance,  broken  the  everlasting  covenant  " 
(xxiv.  5).  '*  In  that  day  shall  the  deaf  hear  the 
words  of  the  book"  (xxix.  18)  ;  that  is,  as  Gese- 
nius  understands  it,  ''  the  Book  of  the  Law."*  We 
have  also,  *'  children  that  will  not  hear  the  law  of 
Jehovah  "  (xxx.  9).  ''  Ye  shall  have  a  song  as  in 
the  night  when  a  holy  feast  is  kept  "  (xxx.  29). 
Gesenius  very  properly  understands  by  this  feast, 
the  Passover, \  '^  Seek  ye  out  of  the  book  of  the 
Lord  and  read"  (xxxiv.  16).  The  reference  here 
is  to  Isaiah's  prophecies  as  forming,  it  would 
seem,  a  part  of  a  collection  of  sacred  writings. 
*'  Thy  first  father  hath  sinned  "  (xliii.  27),  in  ref- 
erence to  Gen.  iii.  6.  In  1.  i  a  "  bill  of  divorce  "  is 
mentioned,  in  reference  to  Deut.  xxiv.  i.  In  li.  2 
Abraham  and  Sarah  are  named,  and  in  verse  10 
there    is  a  reference  to  the  miraculous    passage 

*Heb.  Lex.  Sub.    n?D.  fHeb.  Lex.  Sub.   Jn. 


264  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

through  the  Red  Sea.  *'  For  as  I  have  sworn 
that  the  waters  of  Noah  should  no  more  go  over 
the  earth,"  etc.  (Hv.  9,)  refers  to  Gen.  ix.  11, 
which  is  EloJiistic. 

Hosea,  who  prophesied  chiefly  among  the  ten 
tribes  (B.  C.  785-725),  makes  various  references  to 
the  Pentateuch.  The  comparison  of  the  children 
of  Israel  to  a  woman  who  leaves  her  husband  and 
goes  after  other  men  is  a  favorite  simile  with 
Hosea  to  set  forth  the  apostasy  of  Israel  from 
the  true  God  and  their  devotion  to  idolatrous 
worship.  For  example  :  '^  The  land  hath  commit- 
ted great  whoredom,  departing  from  the  Lord  " 
(i.  2) ;  and  ''  They  have  gone  a  whoring  from 
under  their  God"  (iv.  12).  The  simile  is  obvi- 
ously based  on  the  language  of  the  Pentateuch. 
In  Ex.  xxxiv.  15  it  is  said,  ''Lest  thou  make  a 
covenant  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  land, 
and  they  go  a  whoring  after  their  gods,  and 
do  sacrifice  unto  their  gods."  Quite  similar 
is  Deut.  xxxi.  16.  ''I  will  also  cause  all 
her  mirth  to  cease,  her  feast  days,  her  new 
moons,  and  her  Sabbaths  and  all  her  solemn 
feasts"  (ii.  11),  which  manifestly  refers  to  the  in- 
stitutions of  the  Pentateuch.  In  iv.  6,  it  is  said, 
"Thou  hast  forgotten  the  law  [Torah']  of  thy 
God  "  (iv.  6).  In  v.  10  mention  is  made  of  ''  them 
that  remove  the  bound,"  in  reference  to  Deut. 
xix.  14;  xxvii.  17.  ''  They  have  transgressed  my 
covenant  and  trespassed  against  my  law  "  (viii.  i). 
"Their  sacrifices  shall  be  unto  them  as  the  bread 
of  mourners :  all  that  eat  thereof  shall  be  pol- 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  265 

luted  "  (ix.  4).  This  seems  to  refer  to  Deut.  xxvi. 
14.  "  But  they  went  to  Baal-peor,  and  separated 
themselves  unto  that  shame ;  and  their  abomina- 
tions were  according  as  they  loved  "  (ix.  10).  The 
context  shows  that  the  prophet  refers  to  what 
Israel  did  in  the  Exodus,  and  the  reference  is 
clear  to  Numbers  xxv.,  in  which  there  is  a  de- 
scription of  the  conduct  of  Israel,  "  who  joined 
himself  to  Baal-peor,"  and  of  the  calamities  that 
overtook  the  people,  and  a  statement  of  the  prom- 
ise to  Phinehas  of  an  everlasting  priesthood.  The 
school  of  Wellhausen  puts  this  chapter  in  Num- 
bers into  the  Codex  of  the  priests,  which,  accord- 
ing to  their  theory,  was  written  about  the  time  of 
Ezra.  Could  any  refutation  of  this  be  clearer 
than  Hosea's  reference  to  this  very  chapter?  In 
xi.  8  mention  is  made  of  the  destruction  of  Ad- 
mah  and  Zeboim,  in  reference  to  Gen.  xiv.  8  ;  xix. 
25.  "  He  [Jacob]  took  his  brother  by  the  heel  in 
the  womb,  and  by  his  strength  he  had  power 
with  God :  yea,  he  had  power  over  the  angel, 
and  prevailed :  he  wept  and  made  supplication 
unto  him :  he  found  him  in  Bethel  and  there 
he  spoke  with  us"  (xii.  3,  4).  The  reference  is 
to  Gen.  xxv.  26;  xxxii.  24-30;  xxviii.  11-20. 
The  second  of  these  passages  is  Elohistic,  which 
shows  that  this  part  of  Genesis  was  already  in 
existence.  In  xii.  9  the  prophet  refers  to  the 
feast  of  "  Tabernacles."  This  refers  to  Lev.  xxiii. 
42,  43,  in  which  alone  the  dwelling  in  booths  is 
enjoined.  "And  Jacob  fled  into  the  country  of 
Syria,    and  Jacob  served  for   a   wife,    and  for    a 


266  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

wife  he  kept  sheep"  (xii.   12),  with  reference  to 
Gen.  xxix.-xxx. 

But  the  most  important  passage  is  the  follow- 
ing: ''  I  wrote  for  him  [Ephraim]  multitudes  [nu- 
merous precepts]  of  my  law  [Torah].  What  a 
strarige  thing  were  they  counted  T'  Kathabh,  to 
write,  is  in  the  future  tense  (now  generally  called 
imperfect),  but  were  counted,  nechshabhu,  is  perfect. 
But  the  future  (or  imperfect)  is  often  used  for  the 
past,  of  which  we  have  examples  in  this  prophet. 
"  I  will  visit  upon  her  the  days  of  Baalim,  wherein 
she  burned  incense  to  them  and  decked  herself 
with  earrings"  (ii.  13).  In  this  passage,  "  burned 
incense  "  is  in  X\\q  future,  hiphil,  and  ''  decked  "  is 
the  fUure  bav-conversive.  ''And  I  have  re- 
deemed them,  and  they  have  spoken  falsehood 
against  me  "  (vii.  13).  Here,  "  have  redeemed  "  in 
the  Hebrew  is  the  future  tense.  ''They  have 
sacrificed  flesh  for  the  sacrifices  of  mine  offer- 
ings, and  have  eaten  it  "  (viii.  13).  "  Have  sacri- 
ficed "  is  in  the  future  in  the  Hebrew.  They  sac- 
rificed unto  Baalim  and  burnt  incense  to  graven 
images  "  (xi,  2).  "  Sacrificed  "  and  "  burnt  in- 
cense "  are  both  in  the  future  in  the  original.  "  I 
drew  them  with  the  cords  of  a  man "  (xi.  4). 
"  Drew,"  in  the  original,  is  in  the  future.  Prof. 
W.  R.  Smith  translates  the  passage  as  follows: 
"  Though  I  wrote  to  him  my  Torah  in  ten  thou- 
sand precepts,  they  would  be  esteemed  as  a  strange 
thing."*     But  this  translation  is  inadmissible,  for 

*  *'  The  O.  Test,  in  the  Jewish  Church,"  p.  297. 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  207 

there  is  no  particle  of  condition  or  contingency  in 
the  Hebrew  text — nothing  to  indicate  a  supposi- 
tion. Such  a  method  of  translating  the  bibhcal 
Hebrew  has  no  parallel  in  any  other  instance,  and 
nothing  but  the  requirement  of  a  preconceived 
theory  could  induce  any  one  to  think  of  such  a 
version.  If  the  prophet  had  expressed  a  mere 
supposition  he  would  have  employed  the  particle 
ivi,  if,  althoiighy  before  the  verb  "  wrote,"  just  as 
in  Isaiah  i.  i8:  "Though  [/;;/]  your  sins  be  as 
scarlet  .  .  .  though  [ii/i]  they  be  red  like 
crimson,"  etc.,  and  in  Isaiah  x.  22.  Or  possibly 
the  prophet  might  have  used  gam  kiy  even  if,  as  in 
viii.  lo:  "  Even  if  ^gdui  ki\  they  hire  among  the 
nations,  now  will  I  gather  them."  The  rendering 
'^multitudes"  of  my  law  is  that  of  Gesenius,  and 
not  "  ten  thousand."  The  singular  robJi  occurs  in 
Levit.  XXV.  1 6,  and  is  to  be  rendered  multitude. 
The  Septuagint,  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  Ben 
Uzziel,  the  Peshito  Syriac  and  the  Vulgate,  have 
either  "multitude"  or  "  multitudes"  of  my  law. 
Besides,  Prof.  Smith's  translation  does  not  make 
good  sense.  For  since  Ephraim  is  already  a 
transgressor  of  the  divine  laws,  how  would  he  be 
more  likely  to  observe  teit  thousand  precepts  ? 
Would  they  not  have  overwhelmed  him?  The 
version  "  I  wrote"  is  that  of  both  the  Targum  of 
Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel  and  of  the  Peshito  Syriac. 
De  Wette  translates  the  passage:  "I  am  writing 
out  for  him  many  of  my  laws ;  how  strange  they 
have  been  considered,"  But  at  the  foot  of  the 
page  he  gives  also  "  I  wrote,"  as  an  alternate  ren- 


268  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

dering.  Pusey  translates  it ''  I  write,"  in  the  sense 
that  the  law  was  written  in  the  past  but  is  still 
in  force  in  the  present."^  Prof.  Smend  remarks  on 
the  passage  in  Hosea:  '' The  words  of  Hosea  in 
the  eighth  century  [B.  C]  prove  that  there  were 
many  written  laws  among  the  Ephraimites,  which 
were  contained  in  one  book  or  more,  and  although 
neglected,  they  were  known  to  everybody,  and  in 
the  judgment  of  the  prophet  they  could  claim 
obedience  from  all,  as  they  seemed  to  possess  as 
much  authority  as  if  they  had  been  written  by 
Jehovah  himself."f  Hosea  thus  refutes  Kuenen, 
who  says,  in  the  eighth  century  B.  C.  but  few 
laws  were  ascribed  to  Moses  and  carried  back  to 
the  sojourn  in  the  desert  of  Sinai. J  For  we  may 
ask,  Who  but  Moses  gave  these  laws  to  the 
Ephraimites  ? 

The  prophet  Amos,  who  prophesied  chiefly  in 
the  kingdom  of  Israel  about  B.  C.  795,  refers  to 
various  institutions  of  the  Pentateuch  and  to  a 
body  of  laws :  '*  They  have  despised  the  law 
[Tora/i]  of  the  Lord,  and  have  not  kept  his  com- 
mandments "  (ii.  4).  ^'  To  profane  my  holy  name  '' 
(ii.  7).  The  exact  words  of  Lev.  xx.  3  :  "  Led 
you  forty  years  through  the  wilderness  "  (verse 
10),  the  exact  time  of  the  Pentateuch.     "  I  raised 

*Prof.  Smith  infers,  from  the  fact  that  tlie  law  was  for- 
g,otten,  it  could  not  have  been  written.  In  Hosea  viii.  14, 
it  is  said,  ''Israel  hath  forgotten  his  Maker."  Why,  then, 
could  he  not  have  forgotten  a  tvritten  law  ? 

t  "Moses  apud  Prophetas,"  pp.  13,  14,  Halis,  1875. 

X  "  Religion  of  Israel,"  vol.  i.  p.  139. 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  2G9 

up  ...  of  your  young  men  for  Nazarites 
.  .  .  but  ye  gave  the  Nazarites  wine  to  drink  " 
(ii.  II,  12).  The  institution  of  the  Nazarites  is 
found  in  Numbers  vi.  2-21.  Abstinence  from 
wine  was  a  requirement  of  the  Nazarite.  *'You 
only  have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the 
earth  "  (iii.  2),  in  reference  to  Exodus  xix.  5  ; 
Deut.  vii.  6;  x.  15.  ''  Bring  your  sacrifices  every 
morning,  and  your  tithes  after  three  years  "  (iv. 
4).  Here  the  reference  is  to  the  morning  sacrifice 
enjoined  in  Ex.  xxix.  39 ;  Num.  xxviii.  4,  and  to 
the  tithes  to  be  brought  at  the  end  of  every  three 
years,  as  commanded  only  in  Deut.  xiv.  28;  xxvi.  1 2. 
Even  if  the  passage  be  translated  "  every  three 
days,"  in  bitter  irony,  still  the  reference  will  be  to 
Deuteronomy.  "  Offer  a  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving 
■with  leaven  .  .  .  and  publish  the  freewill  offer- 
ings" (iv.  5).  This  refers  to  Lev.  vii.  13;  xxiii. 
17,  in  respect  to  thanksgiving,  and  to  Lev.  xxii. 
18,21,  in  regard  to  freewill  offerings.  '*  I  have 
smitten  you  with  blasting  and  mildew "  (iv.  9), 
which  are  threatened  in  Deut.  xxviii.  22,  of  which 
the  passage  in  Amos  is  the  exact  language.  '*  As 
God  overthrew  Sodom  and  Gomorrah"  (iv.  11), 
in  reference  to  Gen.  xix.  24.  "  I  hate,  I  despise 
your  feasts,  and  delight  not  in  your  assemblies. 
Though  ye  offer  to  me  burnt  offerings  and  your 
meat  offerings,  I  will  not  accept  them,  and  the 
thank  offerings  of  fatlings  I  will  not  regard  "  (v. 
21,  22).  Here  we  have  a  reference  to  the  sacri- 
ficial institutions  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  viii.  5 
the  festival  of  the  ''  new  moon  "  is  mentioned  (in 


870  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

reference  to  Num.  xxix.  6),  and  also  "  the  sab- 
bath ; "  and  in  verse  lo  occurs  ''your  feasts." 

But  the  following  important  passage  in  Amos  v. 
25,  26  remains  to  be  considered :  ''  Did  ye  bring 
unto  me  sacrifices  and  offerings  in  the  wilderness 
forty  years,  O  house  of  Israel?  Yea,  ye  also  bore 
the  tent  of  your  king,  even  Chiun  your  idol,  the 
star  of  your  god,  which  ye  made  for  yourselves." 
The  passage  cannot  mean  that  the  Israelites  of- 
fered no  sacrifices  during  their  sojourn  in  the 
desert,  nor  does  it  seem  to  mean  that  they  were 
not  offered  to  Jehovah,  but  rather  that  the  Israel- 
ites combined  with  this  service  the  idolatrous 
worship  of  Saturn,  whose  image  and  the  model 
of  whose  tabernacle  they  carried  with  them.  The 
knowledge  of  the  Pentateuch  which  Amos  dis- 
plays  is  remarkable,  as  he  had  received  no  train- 
ing in  the  schools  of  the  prophets,  but  was  simply 
"  a  herdman  and  a  gatherer  of  sycamore  fruit." 

The  prophet  /oe/,  who  it  seems  flourished  about 
870  B.  C,  makes  several  references  to  the  institu- 
tions of  the  Pentateuch.  "  The  meat  offering 
and  the  drink  offering  is  cut  off  from  the  house 
of  the  Lord ;  the  priests,  the  Lord's  ministers, 
mourn,"  (i.  9).  ''Blow  the  trumpet,  call  a  solemn  as- 
sembly, gather  the  people,  sanctify  the  congrega- 
tion ...  let  the  priests,  the  ministers  of  the 
Lord,  weep  between  the  porch  and  the  altar,  and 
let  them  say.  Spare  thy  people,  O  Lord"  (ii.  15- 
17.  It  is  clear  that  Joel  recognizes  the  divine  au- 
thority of  the  priests,  and  certainly  approves  of 
their  services.     "  The  meat  offering  (  minchaJi)  " 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  271 

and  "  the  drink  offering  {nesek)  "  are  the  same 
words  as  in  the  Pentateuch.  "  The  caUing  of  the 
assembly"  was  to  be  made  *'by  blowing  trum- 
pets" (Num.  X.  2,  3).  In  ii.  3  reference  is  made 
to  the  luxuriant  foliage  of  the  "  garden  of  Eden." 

We  have  seen  in  Joel  ii.  15-17,  that  the  temple 
is  the  place  for  religious  worship.  In  iii.  17  he 
says:  ''Jehovah  dwells  in  Zion."  Amos  also 
says,  ''  Jehovah  shall  utter  his  voice  from  Jerusa- 
lem "  (i.  2).  Micah  says,  *'  The  Lord  from  his  holy 
temple  "  (i.  2).  "  The  Lord  of  hosts  dwelleth  in 
Mount  Zion"  (Isaiah  viii.  18).  ''Shall  worship 
Jehovah  in  the  holy  mount  at  Jerusalem  "  (xxvii. 
13).  The  calf  worship  and  the  idolatry  in  general 
are  condemned  by  the  prophets  (Hosea  ii.  5-13  ; 
iv.  13  ;  X.  8,  15  ;  xiii.  2  ;  Amos  iii.  14  ;  Micah  i.  7). 
THE    TESTIMONY    OF  THE    POETICAL  BOOKS    OF 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  TO  THE  PENTATEUCH. 

We  begin  with  the  Book  of  Psalms,  and  first  of 
all  w^e  must  consider  the  question  of  their  date. 
The  new  critical  school  is  not  disposed  to  concede 
any  psalms  to  David,  but  would  place  all  our 
Psalter  after  the  exile.  Seventy-three  psalms  are 
attributed  to  David  in  the  Hebrew  text,  and 
sixty-eight  of  these  are  assigned  to  him  in  the 
Septuagint.  Are  all  these  superscriptions  false  } 
The  Greek  version  of  the  Psalms  was  made  about 
200  B.  C.  To  the  translators  the  superscriptions 
were  in  many  cases  obscure.  Would  this  have 
been  the  case  if  the  Psalms  had  been  written  in 
the  time  of  the  second  ttva^X^}  Did  not  the  ob- 
scurity arise   on  account  of  the   musical  arrange- 


272  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

ments  of  the  Jirsf  temple  being  no  longer  in  exist, 
ence  ?  Gesenius  remarks  on  the  inscription  to  the 
chief  musician^  that  it  '' is  wholly  wanting  in  all 
the  psalms  of  a  later  age,  composed  after  the  de- 
struction of  the  temple  and  its  worship."*  Fifty- 
five  psalms  have  this  inscription.  The  language 
of  most  of  the  psalms  does  not  indicate  the  post- 
exilian  period.  Only  two  have  certain  references 
to  the  captivity.  That  David  was  the  author  of 
Psalms  is  stated  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  i,  where  he  is 
called  ''the  sweet  psalmist  of  Israel"  (Heb. 
sweet  in  songs).  In  Amos  vi.  5  it  is  said  that 
David  was  the  inventor  of  musical  instruments. 
According  to  1  Chron.  xv.  16-27,  David  instituted 
a  service  of  musical  instruments  and  song.  This 
is  indirectly  confirmed  by  the  prophet  Amos,  who, 
after  having  spoken  of  the  offerings  and  sacrifices 
of  Israel  as  being  unacceptable  to  God,  adds: 
"■  Take  thou  away  from  me  the  noise  of  thy  songs, 
for  I  will  not  hear  the  melody  of  thy  viols  "  (v. 
23).  Here  it  is  clear  that  song  or  psalm  service 
was  a  part  of  the  religious  exercises  of  the  ten 
tribes  about  B.  C.  800.  Was  not  this  song-ser- 
vice derived  from  that  established  in  the  Jewish 
temple  in  the  time  of  Solomon?  If  the  songs  sung 
were  not  chiefly  those  of  David,  whose  were  they? 
In  2  Chron.  xxix.  30  it  is  said,  *'  Hezekiah  the 
king  and  the  princes  commanded  the  Levites  to 
sing  praises  unto  the  Lord  with  the  words  of 
David  ajid  of  Asaph  the  seer.''  In  spite  of  all  this 
direct  and  indirect  testimony  to  David's  having 
*  Heb.  Lex. 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  273 

written  psalms,  are  we  to  believe  that  our  Psalter 
contains  none  of  them? 

Let  us  then  consider  what  testimony  is  afforded 
to  the  Pentateuch,  first  of  all,  by  the  Davidic 
Psalms.  We  begin  with  Psalm  xviii.  The  super- 
scription attributes  this  psalm  to  David,  and  states 
under  what  circumstances  it  was  written.  2  Sam. 
chap.  xxii.  contains  this  psalm  with  but  little  va- 
riation, and  attributes  it  to  David.  De  Wette, 
the  great  rationalistic  critic,  acknowledges  this 
psalm  as  undoubtedly  belonging  to  David.  Hitzig 
and  Schrader,  rationalistic  critics,  and  the  free- 
thinking  Ewald,  concede  it  to  him.  What  is  its 
testimony?  David  says  (21,  22),  ''  I  have  kept  the 
ways  of  Jehovah,  and  have  not  wickedly  departed 
from  my  God.  For  all  his  judgments  were  before 
me,  and  I  did  not  put  away  his  statutes  from  me." 
"  Judgments  "  and  "  statutes  "  is  the  language  of 
the  Pentateuch.  The  code  of  laws  to  which  Da- 
vid refers  is  doubtless  that  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Verse  31  most  probably  refers  to  Deut.  xxxii.  31. 
Psalm  xix.  is  ascribed  to  David  and  is  directed  to 
the  chief  musician.  Hitzig  and  Ewald  concede  it 
to  David.  In  this  psalm  mention  is  made  of 
"the  law  [Torak]  of  Jehovah,"  ''the  testimony 
of  Jehovah,"  and  "the  statutes  of  Jehovah."  It 
is  most  natural  to  understand  this  language  of  the 
written  law  of  Moses.  Psalm  xxv.,  attributed  to 
David  by  the  superscription,  refers  to  God's 
"covenant"  and  "testimonies"  (10).  In  Psalm 
xli.  7,  after  speaking  of  sacrifices  named  in  the  law, 
the  Psalmist  says  :  "  I  come  with   the  volume   of 


274  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

the  book  prescribed  unto  me  "  (the  rendering  of 
Gesenius).  The  volume  here  named  Gesenius 
supposes  to  be  that  of  the  law,  and  it  is 
difficult  to  refer  it  to  anything  else.  The  super- 
scription attributes  this  psalm  to  David,  and  it  is 
directed  to  the  chief  singer.  Psalm  Ixviii.  is  as- 
cribed to  David  and  directed  to  the  chief  singer. 
Verses  7  and  8  refer  to  the  Exodus  of  the  Israel- 
ites and  to  the  trembling  of  Mount  Sinai.  Psalm 
ciii.,  ascribed  to  David,  says:  *'  He  made  known 
his  ways  unto  Moses  "  (7),  and  speaks  of  God's 
"  covenant  "  and  ''  precepts."  Psalm  cv.,  as  far  as 
verse  15,  according  to  i  Chron.  xvi.  7,  was  deliv- 
ered by  David  into  the  hand  of  Asaph  and  his 
brethren.  This  psalm  gives  the  history  of  the  Is- 
raelites from  Abraham  until  their  settlement  in 
Canaan,  and  some  of  the  facts  are  thrown  into  a 
poetical  form.  In  Psalm  xv.,  conceded  by  De 
Wette,  Hitzig  and  Bleek  to  be  David's,  refer- 
ence is  made  to  the  Mosaic  law :  ''  He  that 
putteth  not  out  his  money  to  usury."  Twelve 
psalms  are  attributed  to  Asaph.  The  most  of 
these,  especially  Psalm  Ixxviii.,  we  would  ascribe 
to  the  Asaph  of  David's  age.  This  psalm  recites 
the  history  of  Israel  from  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  to 
the  reign  of  David.  Had  it  been  written  at  a 
later  period  than  the  reign  of  Solomon,  it  is  not 
likely  that  it  would  have  ended  with  the  adminis- 
tration of  David.  Still  less  can  we  suppose  that 
it  was  written  after  the  captivity.  In  this  psalm 
the  Hebrew  history  of  the  Pentateuch  is  closely 
followed.      Verse   5    refers    to    the   command   to 


Prophetical  and  Poetical  Books.  275 

teach  the  law  and  the  testimony  to  the  children 
of  the  Israelites,  found  only  in  Deut.  iv.  9 ;  vi.  7 ; 
xi.  19.  In  Psalm  Ixxvi.,  ascribed  to  Asaph,  and 
which  must  have  been  written  before  the  captiv- 
ity, reference  is  made  in  verses  16-20  to  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Red  Sea  and  to  the  leadership  of 
Moses  and  Aaron.  Psalm  Ixxxix.  is  ascribed  to 
Ethan  the  Ezrahite,  who  is  named  in  i  Kings  iv. 
31  as  a  wise  man,  apparently  a  contemporary  of 
David  and  Solomon,  and  in  i  Chron.  xv.  19  ap- 
pears as  a  singer  in  the  time  of  David.  This 
psalm  bears  strong  internal  evidence  of  having 
been  written  in  the  time  of  David,  during  the  re- 
bellion of  Absalom.  In  verses  30,  31  reference 
is  made  to  the  'Maw"  {ToraJi),  ** judgments," 
''statutes,"  and  "commandments"  of  God,  con- 
tained in  the  Pentateuch,  doubtless.  Psalms  cxix. 
and  others  refer  to  the  divine  law,  but  as  we  can- 
not fix  their  age  we  make  no  use  of  them. 

The  Book  of  Proverbs  belonging  to  Solomon, 
with  the  exception  of  xxix.,  xxx.,  contains  some 
references  to  the  precepts  of  the  Pentateuch. 
"  Let  not  mercy  and  truth  forsake  thee  ;  bind  them 
about  thy  neck''  (iii.  3).  Again:  ^'  Bind  them  upon 
thy  fingers''  (vii.  3),  with  reference  to  Deut.  vi.  8  ; 
xi.  18;  Ex.  xiii.  9.  "My  son,  despise  not  the 
chastening  of  the  Lord,  neither  be  weary  of  his 
correction ;  for  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  cor- 
recteth,  even  as  a  father  the  son  in  whom  he  de- 
lighteth"  (iii.  11,  12),  which  appears  to  be  based 
on  Deut.  viii.  5.  "  A  false  balance  is  abomination 
to  the  Lord  "  (xi.  i),  in  reference  to  Deut.  xxv. 


376  Pentateuchal  Criticism, 

13-16.  "  It  is  not  good  to  accept  the  person  of 
the  wicked  to  overthrow  the  righteous  in  judg- 
ment"  (xviii.  5),  probably  refers  to  Lev.  xix.  15 
and  Deut.  xvi.  19.  "  Remove  not  the  ancient 
landmark  which  thy  fathers  have  set "  (xxii.  28) 
refers  to  Deut.  xix.  14.  *'  He  that  by  usury  and 
unjust  gain  increaseth  his  substance  "  (xxviii.  8) 
refers  to  the  Mosaic  precepts  forbidding  interest. 
'''■  He  that  giveth  unto  the  poor  shall  not  lack  " 
(xxviii.  27)  seems  based  on  Deut.  xv.  7-10.  ^'Add 
thou  not  unto  his  [God's]  words  "  (xxx.  6),  from 
Deut.  iv.  2  ;  xii.  32.  Agur's  prayer  is  probably 
based  on  Deut.  viii.  8-17. 

The  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah,  written  soon 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, contains  several  references  to  institutions 
found  in  the  Pentateuch.  In  i.  4  the  **  solemn 
feasts  "  of  Zion  are  named ;  and  in  i.  7  the  "  sab- 
baths." "  The  heathen  entered  into  her  sanc- 
tuary, whom  thou  didst  command  that  they 
should  not  enter  into  thy  congregation"  (i.  10). 
This  refers  to  Deut.  xxiii.  3,  where  it  is  enjoined 
that  "  an  Ammonite  or  a  Moabite  shall  not  enter 
into  the  congregation  of  the  Lord,"  and  shows 
that  Jeremiah  acknowledged  Deuteronomy  as  of 
divine  authority.  In  ii.  6,  "  the  solemn  feasts  " 
and  ''  sabbaths  "  are  said  to  be  forgotten.  "  The 
law  [Tora/i]  is  no  more"  (ii.  9).  "  Her  Nazarites 
were  purer  than  snow  "  (iv.  7).  This  implies  the 
existence  of  the  order  of  the  Nazarites  described 
in  Numbers  vi.  1-8.  In  iv.  6  reference  is  made 
to  the  sudden  overthrow  of  Sodom. 


SYNOPSIS. 


Truth  the  supreme  test.  The  Higher  Criticism  reasons 
on  a  low  plane.  It  is  a  higher  plane  to  consider  its  effects, 
if  carried  out  on  the  practical  estimate  of  the  Bible. 
Primary  Higher  Criticism  :  its  destructive  character  and 
unscientific  method.  Secondary  Higher  Criticism  :  more 
plausible  and  dangerous,  but  less  consistent  and  logical. 
This  principalis''  concerns  us.  Its  effects :  1.  It  develops 
distrust  of  Scripture.  2.  A  critical  spirit.  3.  Slights  the 
principle  of  authorship.  4.  Destroj^s  the  realism  of  Scrip- 
tural history.  5.  Gives  no  satisfactory  account  of  the 
origin  of  the  religion  and  history  of  Israel.  6.  Discredits 
the  revelation  of  God  by  an  historical  process.  7.  Rejects 
the  natural  order  of  the  development  of  religion.  8.  Dis- 
honors the  prophets.  9.  Discredits  Christ  and  the  writers 
of  the  New  Testament.  10.  Makes  biblical  theology  un- 
satisfactory and  worthless  ;  and  11.  Impeaches  the  whole 
doctrine  of  inspiration,  and  gives  us  a  spent  Bible. 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  AND  A  SPENT 
BIBLE. 

BY   ISRAEL   E.   DWINELL. 

The  fundamental  question  in  reference  to  the 
Higher  Criticism  is,  of  course,  the  question  of  its 
truth.  Closely  following  this  is  the  question  of 
its  influence  on  the  practical  value  and  uses  of  the 
Bible.  If  it  is  true,  the  Christian  world  can  be 
asked  to  look  on  and  see  their  former  estimate  of 
the  Bible  suffer  martyrdom  for  the  Truth's  sake ; 
for  whatever  else  v/e  believe  about  the  Bible,  we 
believe  it  supremely  loyal  to  truth.  But  the 
Higher  Criticism  does  not  make  out  a  clear  case 
before  the  tribunal  of  truth.  It  reaches  no  cer- 
tainties. It  appeals  to  subjective  considerations. 
Its  field  lies  in  the  realm  of  probabilities.  It  car- 
ries philosophy  as  the  lamp  by  which  to  find  facts, 
by  which,  also,  to  estimate  the  facts  thus  found, 
and  by  which  finally  to  arrange  them  in  a  system. 
It  reasons  on  a  low  plane — the  plane  of  personal 
insight  and  judgment — in  the  midst  of  numberless 
subtle  and  equivocal  data,  trying  to  reconstruct 
the  order  of  history  and  religious  development 
thousands  of  years  ago.  Its  processes  are  not  cer- 
tainties, but  guesses.  Hence  it  is  reasoning  on  a 
higher  plane,  though  not  the  highest,  when  we 
consider  the  effects  of  its  application  on  the  esti- 
mate of  the  Bible.  If  the  Higher  Criticism  is 
accepted   as   true,  and    its  results  admitted,  the 


280  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Bible  becomes  a  spent  book.  The  mysterious 
constructive  power  pervading  it  and  making  it  like 
a  living  organism  is  gone,  and  the  divine  forces 
steal  out  of  it.  It  ceases  to  speak  with  authority. 
No  one  finds  in  it  more  than  he  carries  to  it.  Its 
divineness  is  the  echo  of  the  divineness  that  con- 
fronts it.  God  speaks  on  the  page  only  what  he 
had  previously  spoken  in  consciousness. 

It  is  the  object  of  this  discussion  to  trace  some 
of  these  effects. 

Higher  Criticism  is  of  two  kinds  :  the  Primary 
and  the  Secondary. 

The  Primary  assumes  that  the  religion  of  Israel 
is  simply  one  of  the  world  religions.  It  is  a  natu- 
ral development  of  the  religious  nature  of  man. 
All  its  forms  and  contents  are  to  be  accounted  for 
as  the  outcome  of  the  natural  peculiarities  and 
circumstances  of  the  Hebrew  race,  as  the  esthetic 
culture  of  Greece  and  the  civil  organization  and 
the  legal  system  of  Rome  are  to  be  accounted  for 
in  that  way.  The  extraordinary  elements  which 
have  gathered  about  its  story,  all  the  supernatural 
and  miraculous  elements,  are  regarded  as  later 
imaginings  thrown  back  on  the  early  facts.  It  is 
taken  for  granted  that  the  first  thing  to  be  done 
by  the  Higher  Critic  is  to  go  through  the  religious 
literature  and  reduce  to  a  natural  human  level  all 
these  mythological  additions  and  fables.  The  next 
thing,  as  the  sacred  narrative  has  evidently  been 
arranged  to  set  forth  this  supernaturalism,  is  to 
pull  apart  the  imaginary  historical  setting  in  which 
it  is  presented,  decide  what  is  fact  and  what  is 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      281 

fabrication ;  and  the  last  thing,  having  thrown 
away  the  fabricated  portions,  is  to  rearrange  what 
is  left  in  the  proper  historical  order  of  a  natural 
development  of  the  religious  life. 

This  natural  law  of  the  unfolding  of  religion 
is  made  supreme,  and  when  the  knowledge  of  it 
is  gained  everything  must  bend  to  it.  State- 
ments that  stand  in  its  way  are  brushed  aside. 
This  law  is  not  considered  subjective.  It  is 
claimed  that  it  exists  outwardly  in  the  religions 
of  the  world.  But  the  knowledge  of  it  is  subjec- 
tive ;  and  strange  to  say,  the  Primary  Higher 
Critic,  in  studying  the  religions  of  the  world  to 
ascertain  what  this  law  is,  omits  the  facts  of  the 
highest  and  most  fully  delineated  religion  till  he  has 
decided  on  the  law,  and  then  he  takes  that  law  as 
the  light  by  which  to  study  the  facts.  Having 
found  the  law — possibly  merely  a  subjective  law — 
everything  he  encounters  in  the  sacred  narrative 
inconsistent  with  it  he  rejects  or  readjusts  and  re- 
colors;  everything  favorable  he  accepts,  empha- 
sizes, and  magnifies  as  a  supreme  attestation  of 
his  theory.  He  does  all  this  imperially  and  with- 
out hesitation,  because  he  carries  in  his  bosom  an 
internal  eye  that  is  anointed  with  the  insight  of 
a  seer  and  that  discerns  the  law  of  religious  growth. 
It  is  evident  that  the  effect  of  this  kind  of  criti- 
cism must  be  fatal  to  the  authority  or  any  high 
worth  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  It  tells  us 
beforehand,  if  God  is  found  in  them  in  any  spe- 
cial way,  if  miracle  or  revelation  is  found  in  them, 
it  is  going  to  read  them  out.     We  cannot  expect 


382  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Wellhausen  or  Kuenen  or  Stade  to  absorb  the 
Hebrew  history,  digest  it,  and  then  resecrete  it 
with  God  active  in  it  or  with  any  special  inspira- 
tion, or  real  divine  revelation  or  supernatural 
interposition  of  any  sort  in  it,  any  more  than  we 
could  expect  a  yew  tree  to  throw  its  roots  around 
the  grave  of  Shakespeare  or  Milton  and  then  se- 
crete from  its  branches  a  *'  Hamlet  "  or  *'  Paradise 
Lost."  No  one  ought  to  be  surprised  at  the 
results  of  this  kind  of  Higher  Criticism.  But  while 
the  results  are  not  surprising,  we  have  a  right  to 
complain  of  the  one-sided  and  unscientific  manner 
of  reaching  them.  The  method  is  contrary  to  the 
method  of  science.  Science  aims  to  ascertain  the 
facts  first — the  facts  in  their  own  intrinsic  quality, 
not  as  colored  and  interpreted  by  preconception 
and  theory — and  then  draws  from  them  a  general- 
ization to  cover  them  exactly,  excluding  none, 
cramping  none,  and  admitting  nothing  but  the 
facts  and  their  implications.  But  these  Higher 
Critics  separate  themselves,  at  the  start,  from  the 
method  of  science  by  refusing  to  notice  the 
alleged  facts  of  supernaturalism  at  all,  except  on 
the  basis  of  naturalism.  They  go  into  the  in- 
quiry with  an  unscientific  assumption.  They 
make  the  facts  out  of  a  theory,  and  then  arrange 
the  facts  to  sustain  the  theory,  going  round  and 
round  in  an  endless  circle. 

The  Secondary  Higher  Criticism  aims  to  pre- 
serve the  supernatural  element  and  the  substan- 
tial integrity  of  the  historical  facts  while  it  re- 
arranges them.     It   regards  the  religion  of  Israel 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      283 

as  a  special  development,  begun,  endowed,  and 
guided  by  God,  and  the  literature  in  which  this 
development  is  recorded  as  exceptional  in  origin 
and  worth  among  all  the  religious  writings  of  the 
world.  It  labors,  however,  under  some  peculiar 
disadvantages.  True,  its  results  are  not  so  dam- 
aging. It  leaves  a  Bible  with  a  record  of  super- 
natural facts.  It  gives  a  religion  the  footprints 
of  which  are  not  purely  naturalistic,  but  the 
gracious  march  of  God  on  the  earth  for  the  salva- 
tion of  men.  But  it  is  not  so  unequivocal,  self- 
consistent,  and  sharply  and  transparently  logical 
in  its  processes.  It  plays  fast  and  loose  with  de- 
structiv^e  criticism,  and  fast  and  loose  with  con- 
servative criticism.  It  shows  respect  for  the 
sacred  narrative,  and  disrespect  for  it.  It  honors 
the  Bible,  and  dishonors  it.  It  culls  scriptural 
facts,  reassorts  them,  and  throws  them  around  in 
new  and  strange  combinations.  At  one  time  it 
adopts  the  method  of  the  Primary  Higher  Criti- 
cism ;  at  another  it  flinches  from  its  conclusions. 
Its  position  at  every  point  is  that  of  weakness, 
never  certain  of  its  standing,  for  it  has  no  sure 
fixed  principles  on  w^hich  to  rest. 

Critics  of  this  school  believe  in  the  divine  call 
and  training  of  Israel,  in  revelation  and  miracle, 
in  the  substantial  truth  of  the  supernatural  facts, 
but  do  not  believe  that  the  events  occurred  in  the 
order  in  which  they  are  put  together  in  the  He- 
brew literature.  They  accept  the  theory  of  the 
unchronological  stratification  of  the  records,  and 
set  themselves  to  the  task  of  rearranging  them. 


284  Pentateuciial  Cuiticism. 

Microscopic  scrutiny  .  detects,  they  think,  the 
seams  of  the  unhistoric  stratification,  and  also  the 
mystic  hints  and  signs  intelHgible  to  those  of 
esoteric  discernment  which  hint  the  origin  and 
age  of  the  respective  composite  parts.  Gifted 
with  such  insight,  what,  they  ask,  can  they  do  but 
redistribute  the  contents  in  the  order  of  their  sup- 
posed occurrence,  putting  the  Priestly  Code,  the 
Levitical  law,  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  after 
the  earlier  prophets,  some  time  perhaps  in  the 
age  of  Josiah,  cutting  up  the  historical  books, 
and  stringing  the  excerpts  along  the  centuries  to 
suit  their  analysis? 

It  is  this  Secondary  Higher  Criticism  that  prin- 
cipally concerns  us.  It  is  this  that  most  invades 
our  Protestant  churches.  The  Primary  kind  does 
not  imperil  them  directly.  It  is  too  radical,  too 
destructive,  too  transparent.  But  the  Secondary 
falls  in  with  a  passion  of  the  times,  the  love  of 
novelty,  which  is  as  much  a  trait  of  the  Christian 
world  now  as  it  was  of  Athens  in  the  time  of  the 
Apostle  Paul.  Many  restless  good  men  are  uncon- 
sciously caught  and  borne  on  by  this  tendency. 
They  find  their  mission  in  trying  to  readjust  Chris- 
tianity to  new  theories  before  the  theories  are 
proved.  They  make  haste  to  put  themselves  on 
the  side  of  the  readjustment  before  there  is  a  call 
to  readjust  anything,  finding  themselves,  as  they 
think  joyfully,  in  the  van  of  leadership,  and 
abreast  of  the  best  minds  of  the  age.  With  such 
men  a  new  theory  is  believed  on  half  the  evidence 
on  which  an  old  one  is  maintained.     Surrounded 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      285 

by  this  restless,  curious  spirit  of  the  age,  stimu- 
lated by  it,  imagining  that  the  new  things  are 
likely  to  be  the  coming  faiths,  and  moved,  as  they 
imagine,  by  a  love  of  truth,  many  such  persoils 
have  taken  up  this  stratification  theory,  and  are 
now  reading  and  interpreting  the  Bible  in  that 
way,  holding  on  to  the  old  and  taking  up  the  new 
at  the  same  time,  but  doing  both  with  weak  and 
illogical  grasp. 

Before  considering  in  detail  the  influence  of  this 
modified  Higher  Criticism  on  the  estimate  of  the 
Bible,  we  wish  to  state  that  we  freely  concede 
that  there  are  occasional  passages  of  a  later  origin 
that  have  been  brought  into  the  text.  They  are 
of  the  nature  of  appended  notes  or  single  changed 
words,  introduced  by  copyists  to  make  the  narra- 
tive more  intelligible  to  their  later  age,  and  do  not 
indicate  the  late  origin  of  the  main  body  of  the 
writing  itself  in  which  they  are  found.  It  is  much 
more  in  keeping  with  the  historical  spirit  to  sup- 
pose that  occasional  glosses  would  find  their  way 
in  this  manner  into  the  narrative,  than  to  believe 
that  these  exceptional  passages  only  have  the  true 
chronological  color,  and  all  the  other  portions, 
constituting  almost  the  entire  narrative,  have  a 
false  historical  color.  For  the  former  explanation 
concedes  honesty  in  the  authors  and  what  is  natu- 
ral in  the  copyists,  while  the  latter  admits  of  only 
a  grain  of  honesty  in  the  exceptional  sentences 
and  phrases,  while  the  larger  portion  is  a  fabrica- 
tion, a  supposition,  which  is  as  unhistorical  as  it  is 
morallv  inadmissible. 


2SG  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

What,  then,  is  the  effect  of  the  SecondaryHighef 
Criticism  on  the  estimate  of  the  Bible  ? 

I.  It  develops  a  spirit  of  distrust  of  Scripture. 
It  gives  out  that  events  did  not  occur  in  the  his- 
torical order  in  which  they  are  recorded.  It  stamps 
the  narrative  as  an  irregular  and  confused  stratifi- 
cation. Later  redactors  have  taken  previous  doc- 
uments and  put  them  promiscuously  together  with 
an  unhistorical  location  and  coloring  of  their  own 
in  connection  with  more  or  less  new  matter.  The 
moment  this  criticism  invests  the  Bible,  like  the 
smokefish  it  surrounds  the  book  and  the  whole 
region  with  a  cloud  of  murkiness.  If  the  critics 
could  penetrate  this  cloudy  region  with  the  clear 
light  of  definite  and  fixed  principles,  recognized 
and  admitted  by  all,  and  could  restratify  the  his- 
tory so  as  to  leave  an  unmistakable  historical 
record,  and  give  us  at  last  a  Bible  in  the  new  form 
that  would  be  unquestionable  in  the  order  of 
events,  the  distrust  might  soon  be  over.  But 
they  have  no  common  principles  of  readjustment. 
Each  critic  has  his  own  principles  and  his  own 
method  of  applying  them.  No  one  but  the  illu- 
minated seers  themselves  can  reproduce  the 
ancient  history,  and  no  one  of  them  does  it  five 
years  in  succession  in  the  same  way.  For  all  others 
destitute  of  this  illumination,  each  readjuster 
pulls  apart  the  Bible  and  does  not  put  it  together 
again.  He  destroys  faith  ;  he  does  not  restore  it. 
He  breaks  down  confidence  in  the  book;  he  does 
not  build  it  up.  The  process  of  reconstruction 
has  begun,  and  where  shall  it  end  ?     Who   has 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      287 

the  authoritative  reconstructing  eye  and  voice? 
Who  can  tell  us  absolutely,  Here  is  your  Bible? 
No  one.  The  principle  of  reconstruction  is  the 
principle  of  suspicion,  and  under  the  principle  of 
suspicion  the  Bible  drifts  down,  down,  to  general 
historical  distrust. 

2.  It  creates  a  critical  spirit.  The  mind  is  put 
to  questioning  whether  this  or  that  is  genuine,  in 
its  right  place,  and  is  historical.  The  writings  are 
treated  as  the  work  of  historical  jugglers,  now 
throwing  late  events  back  into  the  mold  of  the 
past  to  make  them  seem  ancient  history,  and  now 
setting  forth  actual  occurrences  so  as  to  make 
them  appear  in  the  womb  of  futurity  and  pass  for 
prophecy.  The  wits  of  the  reader  must  be  sharp 
to  catch  the  truth  under  these  various  metamor- 
phoses. 

This  critical  spirit  is  no  mood  in  which  to  de- 
rive practical  benefit  from  the  Bible.  As  a  drill 
for  the  intellectual  faculties,  as  a  stimulus  for  the 
investigation  of  ancient  literature,  manners,  and 
civilization  generally,  it  may  be  useful.  But  it 
stands  in  the  way  of  receiving  spiritual  help. 
Moreover,  it  interferes  with  what  may  be  called 
the  structural  appreciation  of  the  sacred  writings. 
As  we  find  them,  each,  with  all  its  diversities  of 
parts,  rises  before  us  in  a  kind  of  architectural 
unity.  But  this  critical  spirit  dissolves  the  fabric. 
Suppose  one  were  to  go  into  St.  Peter's,  and  in- 
stead of  studying  it  as  it  is,  taking  in  its  grandeur 
and  being  lifted  up  by  its  esthetic  appeals,  should 
set  himself  about   resolving  it  into  its  historical 


288  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

elements  and  rearranging  them  in  the  order  of 
their  construction,  assigning  the  different  parts  to 
their  respective  architects  —  this  to  Bramonte, 
that  to  Raphael,  that  to  San  Gallo,  that  to 
Michael  Angelo,  that  to  Vignola,  that  to  Carlo 
Maderno,  and  that  to  Bernini — would  not  this 
analytical  spirit  make  it  impossible  for  him  to  ap- 
preciate the  structure  as  it  stands,  and  lead  him 
to  descend  from  the  plane  of  art  to  historical 
pedantry  and  finesse?  So  if  we  are  looking  al- 
ways for  seams,  transpositions,  and  unhistorical 
narratives  in  the  Scriptures,  we  cannot  take  in 
the  separate  parts  in  their  proper  structural  rela- 
tion, and  the  whole  fabric  falls  into  a  mass  of 
disjecta  membra. 

3.  This  brings  us  to  another  point.  Our  critics 
fail  to  recognize  the  proper  influence  of  author- 
ship. The  sacred  books  have  each  something 
about  them  that  distinguishes  them  from  all  other 
writings.  There  is  something  in  the  origin  and 
contents  of  each  that  makes  it  peculiar,  giving  it 
a  unique  character  and  right  to  have  influence 
and  authority  among  men.  It  was  written  to  live, 
and  it  lives.  This  comes  largely  from  the  pecul- 
iar impact  of  authorship.  This  differentiates  it 
from  the  other  books,  and  imparts  an  intrinsic 
value  to  it  apart  from  the  source  of  the  material. 
The  writer  may  have  taken  it  from  previous  docu- 
ments, traditions,  divine  revelations,  his  own  in- 
spired thinking,  or  natural  reasoning  ;  no  matter, 
once  having  it,  and  having  put  it  in  form,  the 
book  becomes   a   constructive   whole,    with    the 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      289 

genius  of  his  peculiar  authorship  running  through 
it.  Shakespeare  may  have  taken  from  Boccaccio 
material  for  his  Midsunivicr  NigJifs  Dream,  Cym- 
bcline,  and  AlVs  Well  that  Ends  Well,  and  from 
Cinthio  material  for  his  Othello ;  but  these  bor- 
rowed elements  were  transfigured  and  taken  up 
into  new  meaning  by  the  transcendent  insight 
and  genius  of  the  poet,  and  are  no  longer  to  be 
viewed  in  their  old  form,  but  in  the  present  set- 
ting and  significance.  In  like  manner,  whatever 
elements  the  writers  of  the  Bible  found  to  their 
hand  underwent  a  change  when  they  were  taken 
up  by  them  and  put  into  their  writings,  and  they 
are  to  be  estimated  by  us  in  their  transfigured 
form. 

Some  of  the  books,  like  Isaiah  and  most  of  the 
other  prophets,  do  not  purport  to  be  a  single 
treatise,  but  a  collection  of  treatises,  arranged 
without  regard  to  chronology.  But  this  does  not 
prove  diversity  of  authorship  in  such  cases,  any 
more  than  a  collection  of  the  writings  of  Emer- 
son, with  their  heterogeneous  philosophies  and 
theologies,  proves  diversity  of  authorship. 

In  the  course  of  time,  indeed,  the  original  text 
has  been  marred  here  and  there  by  excrescences, 
interpolations,  foreign  additions — the  explanations 
or  glosses  of  copyists  or  editors,  who  had  no 
method  of  adding  foot-notes,  like  modern  editors, 
but  introduced  them  into  the  text.  These  are  to 
be  critically  detected  and  bracketed.  But  when 
this  is  done,  and  the  extraneous  matterisdeducted, 
the  remainder,  the  great  body  of  the  book,  is  to 


290  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

be  taken  as  having  the  quaHty  of  true  scriptural 
authorship.  And  we  must  remember  there  is  no 
other  Hterature  in  the  world  the  separate  parts  of 
which  have  more  evidence  of  being  the  products 
of  the  pecuhar  afflatus  which  marks  the  individu- 
ahty  of  authorship.  Each  comes  forth  from  its 
own  creative  heat.  They  have  made  the  impres- 
sion on  the  world  of  being  the  outcome  of  high 
sovereign  production.  Patched  -  up  literatures, 
encyclopediac  compilations,  conglomerate  writ- 
ings, stratified  productions,  not  having  the  force 
and  glow  of  genuine  authorship,  are  not  the  books 
which  the  world  will  not  willingly  let  die.  No 
matter  wdiat  men  in  the  nineteenth  century,  with 
microscopic  eyes,  may  say,  twenty  centuries,  thirty 
centuries  have  said,  *'  These  books  have  on  them, 
individually  and  separately,  the  stamp  of  a  pecul- 
iar creative  origin.  So  we  have  honored  them  and 
loved  them,  and  handed  them  over  to  the  coming 
centuries." 

Whenever  men  approach  such  books,  each  with 
the  genius  and  quality  of  extraordinary  author- 
ship diffused  through  it,  they  should  do  it  with 
reverence,  and  discuss  them  accordingly.  It  is 
not  seemly  to  begin  pulling  apart  and  dissecting 
to  find  the  sources  of  the  material,  in  order  to 
form  their  estimate  of  them  from  that.  They  may 
engage  in  this  analysis  for  curious  reasons,  as  mat- 
ters of  literary  or  scholastic  knowledge,  but  not  to 
judge  of  the  work  as  a  creative  whole.  Suppose 
there  were  primitive  documents  or  later  redac- 
tions, the  real  author,  wherever  we  find  him,  is  the 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      291 

one  whose  work  is  sacred,  and  is  to  be  studied  as 
a  literary  whole.  The  Minerva  of  Phidias  on  the 
Acropolis  of  Athens  had  various  substances  en- 
tering into  its  construction — marble,  ivory,  gold — 
and  very  likely  Phidias  may  have  employed  special 
artisans  of  these  different  materials  in  bringing 
them  into  form  to  suit  the  sublime  ideal.  But 
they  were  all  dominated  by  him  and  brought 
under  his  plan  ;  and  when  the  statue  was  finished, 
all  these  subordinate  parts  were  to  be  studied  as 
organic  portions  of  the  one  artistic  whole,  and  with 
reference  to  the  esthetic  end.  To  do  otherwise 
would  be  to  descend  to  base  trifling.  But  this 
trifling  is  precisely  what  the  higher  critics  are  do- 
ing with  the  sacred  books.  They  ignore  them  as 
literary  finalities.  They  dishonor  the  principle 
of  authorship.  They  sink  the  writer's  ideal  pur- 
pose beneath  trifling  questions  relating  to  the 
sources  of  the  material.  They  pay  no  attention 
to  the  peculiar  power  which  has  taken  possession 
of  all  the  material,  from  whatever  source  de- 
rived, and  fused  it  into  one  living  whole,  and  sent 
it,  a  lighi  and  a  power,  down  the  ages.  And  they 
have  gone  to  delving  amid  the  seams  and  stratifi- 
cations, and  looking  at  the  parts  with  cold,  ana- 
lytic eyes,  dropping  down  from  the  creative  realm 
and  purpose  of  the  book  into  another  realm 
foreign  and  hostile  to  it — that  of  atomic  criticism 
based  on  subjective  demands. 

4.  It  robs  the  world  of  the  realism  of  a  large 
section  of  ancient  history.  The  history  of  Israel 
has    hitherto  been  considered  the  most  definite. 


293  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

lifelike,  and  helpful  of  all  the  ancient  histories. 
Through  that  the  Christian  world  has  had  one 
avenue  through  which  it  could  gaze  back  into  the 
remote  past  and  see  what  was  actually  there — the 
movements  of  men,  the  throes  and  passions  of 
civilization,  and  the  underlying  principles  and 
forces  of  history.  The  true  inwardness  of  the  rise, 
progress,  and  fall  of  empire  was  there  apparent. 
From  no  other  pages  did  such  light  and  help  pour 
into  the  sympathetic  student.  We  may  not 
understand  the  process,  but  divine  forces  and  in- 
spirations come  out  of  the  depth  of  those  Old 
Testament  records  and  quicken  and  raise  the 
quality  of  modern  life. 

But  the  effect  of  this  criticism  is  to  smite  the 
historical  casket,  and  scatter  these  fine  celestial 
values.  The  facts  themselves,  from  being  the 
most  real  and  solid,  become  questionable,  as  if 
we  should  awake  some  day  and  find  the  pyramids 
after  all  only  banks  of  fog.  History  of  Israel 
there  is  none,  but  bits  of  history,  like  fragments 
of  glass  in  a  kaleidoscope,  and  each  critic  turns 
the  kaleidoscope  and  makes  the  combinations  to 
suit  himself. 

In  like  manner  historical  persons,  which  have 
hitherto  been  a  marked  feature  in  biblical  his- 
tory, cease  to  be  quite  real,  and  become  ideal 
creations,  or  are  colored  and  made  uncertain  by 
myths.  Abraham,  Jacob,  Joseph,  Moses,  to  say 
nothing  of  Noah,  Enoch,  and  Adam,  are  no  longer 
substantial  persons,  but  pass  among  fabulous 
beings,   like    those    of    the     prehistoric    ages   of 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      293 

Greece  and  Rome.  Those  grand  characters  who 
have  stood  in  sharp-cut  and  soHd  individuality, 
like  the  obelisks  on  the  banks  of  the  Nile,  un- 
touched by  the  ravages  of  the  centuries,  glide 
out  of  the  regions  of  light  and  skulk  as  ghosts  in 
bewildering  darkness. 

This  historical  loss  is  irreparable.  A  little  while 
ago  we  were  in  a  world  of  facts ;  suddenly  we 
find  ourselves  gazing  into  a  region  where  nothing 
is  certain,  where  shadows  are  chasing  shadows, 
and  where  the  region  itself,  through  which  they 
uncertainly  and  tumultuously  come  and  go  with 
annoying  iilusiveness,  has  few  landmarks  from 
which  to  take  our  reckoning. 

5.  It  is  unsatisfactory  in  its  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  the  religion  and  history  of  Israel.  It 
admits  certain  outcomes  from  the  Mosaic  period, 
but  denies  the  biblical  account,  and  substitutes  a 
different  and  unauthenticated  version  of  its  own. 
It  intercepts  the  current  of  history  after  it  has 
emerged  from  what  it  considers  the  doubtful 
period  of  Moses,  Joshua,  Judges,  and  the  Kings, 
when  Israel  has  already  strongly  marked  features 
and  fixed  traits — the  indelible  stamp  of  centuries 
of  training.  At  this  point — say  four  and  a  half 
or  five  centuries  before  Christ — it  finds,  unmis- 
takably, a  central  place  of  worship,  a  priestly 
code,  a  detailed  Levitical  ritual — the  identical 
religious  system  that  has  ever  since  been  clearly 
known.  At  the  very  moment  of  this  emergence, 
the  people  are  possessed  of  a  most  unique  and 
remarkable  religious  literature.    They  are  clinging 


294  Pei.'tateuchal  Criticism. 

to  this  literature,  and  this  hterature  is  cHnging 
to  them.  The  two  are  united  and  attached 
as  no  other  people  and  their  literature  have 
ever  been  united,  and  as  apparently  they  could 
be  only  after  centuries  of  mutual  interaction. 
This  literature  gives  an  account  of  the  origin  and 
early  history  of  this  strange  people,  and  of  the 
peculiar  religious  system  which  they  have  brought 
with  them.  No  other  account  of  the  origin  of  the 
people  or  the  religion  is  extant.  The  literature 
has  all  the  marks  of  genuineness,  and  of  having 
been  from  its  origin  a  part  of  the  life  of  the  nation. 

It  is  this  account  of  origins  which  our  critics 
set  aside.  They  impeach  the  most  vital,  the  most 
influential,  the  most  intertwining  literature  of  the 
whole  ancient  world.  The  very  literature  that 
comes  forth  throbbing  with  the  proofs  of  genuine- 
ness, having  a  nation  clinging  to  it,  and  staking 
their  all  on  it — this,  they  say,  is  an  afterthought,  a 
later  composition.  And  in  place  of  the  origins 
given  by  this  literature,  they  give  a  theory  of  their 
own,  not  drawn  from  historical  facts  but  philo- 
sophical conjectures.  They  take  this  historical 
movement,  which  emerges  full  grown  from  dim 
antiquity,  with  all  the  marks  of  a  vital  movement, 
decapitate  it,  give  us  the  headless  trunk,  proceed 
,to  supply  the  place  of  the  removed  head  with  one  of 
their  own  manufacture,  and  then  to  galvanize  the 
result  into  a  temporary  semblance  of  life.  They 
destroy  a  natural  account  to  substitute  an  artificial 
one. 

Hence,  under   this   criticism,    notwithstanding 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      295 

our  eagerness  to  understand  the  real  genesis  of 
this  peculiar  people  and  literature — the  two  inter- 
locked— we  are  baffled.  We  find  the  centralized 
worship  in  the  later  times,  and  see  and  touch  the 
very  foundation  stones  of  Solomon's  temple,  the 
sign  of  a  centralized  worship  in  the  earlier  times ; 
but  we  are  told  we  must  not  believe  that  the  na- 
tion in  the  time  of  Solomon  had  a  divine  summons 
to  worship  in  one  place.  We  see  in  operation  the 
detailed  ritual  regulating  the  services  of  the 
priests  and  the  Levites  ;  but  we  must  not  accept 
the  account  given  in  the  Books  of  Leviticus  and 
Deuteronomy  as  indicating  their  origin.  We  have 
the  feast  of  the  Passover,  kept  in  grateful  com- 
memoration of  a  great  historic  event ;  and  we  may 
believe  everything  about  it  but  the  history  under 
it.  We  come  upon  a  people  peculiarly  trained, 
and  holding  to  the  training  apparatus  with  unex- 
ampled tenacity  ;  but  we  must  regard  this  ap- 
paratus as  a  late  invention,  and  hold  that  the  na- 
tion did  not  march  out  of  the  remote  past  with  it. 
We  find  Israel  believing  in  a  covenant  between 
them  and  Jehovah,  of  mercy  and  protection  on 
God's  side,  and  of  service,  moral  and  ceremonial, 
on  theirs ;  but  the  very  foundation  tablet  of  this 
covenant,  engraven  in  stone  "  with  the  finger  of 
God,"  admitted  to  date  back  to  the  age  of  Moses 
— the  so-called  Ten  Commandments — we  are  asked 
to  modify  and  reshape,  without  a  particle  of  his- 
torical or  textual  evidence,  to  make  them  ''  terse  " 
and  "  symmetrical,"  and  have  them  suit  the  private 
opinions    and    forecast    theories   of    the   critics. 


296  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Moreover,  we  find  Israel  with  a  knowledge  of 
Jehovah  as  the  only  supreme,  holy,  self-existent 
God  ;  but  we  are  not  to  accept  the  accounts  which 
inform  us  how  he  was  made  known  to  them  and 
differentiated  from  the  gods  of  the  surrounding 
nations.  The  frequent  exhibition  of  idolatry  in 
those  ancient  days  we  are  not  to  regard  as  lapses 
from  a  higher  knowledge,  but  natural  incidents  in 
the  great  struggle  up  from  polytheism,  and  from 
regarding  Jehovah  at  first  as  merely  a  national  god 
on  a  level  with  the  Baalim,  We  see  the  full  faith 
in  Jehovah  ;  but  we  must  discredit  the  scriptural 
story  of  its  origin,  and  rely  on  the  wits  of  the 
critics  to  invent  a  better  one.  In  fact,  the  whole 
region  of  origins — even  the  most  central  and 
fundamental  portions  of  it,  the  parts  to  which  the 
largest  concessions  of  being  historical  are  made — 
is  plastic,  and  the  critics  mold  it  and  play  with  it 
and  put  it  in  new  and  fantastic  shapes  as  they 
please.  We  have  the  outcomes — solid,  massive, 
immovable,  very  pyramids  themselves — but  we  are 
asked  to  believe  that  under  them  there  is  no 
known  foundation  of  historical  truth. 

6.  It  throws  discredit  on  the  revelation  of  God 
by  an  historical  process.  It  is  admitted  by  all 
theists  that  no  inconsiderable  part  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  in  the  world  has  come  through  his 
connection  with  the  ongoings  of  history.  God 
early  interposed  in  the  flow  of  events,  enabhng 
men  to  mark  his  presence  and  the  meaning  of 
that  presence.  In  this  way  he  gradually  intro- 
duced himself  to  human  thought  and  faith.     Thus 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      297 

by  breaking  in  upon  their  life  in  an  unusual  man- 
ner and  showing  by  acts  and  words,  ''This  is  I," 
and  asserting  himself  historically,  he  at  length 
developed  a  conscious  relation  between  him  and 
the  Hebrew  race,  degraded  and  blinded  as  they 
had  been. 

The  historical  method  of  introducing  a  revela- 
tion seems  necessary,  for  the  innate  God-sense, 
however  much  w^e  may  make  of  that,  the  demands 
of  the  moral  nature,  the  manifestations  of  God  in 
the  natural  world,  any  theophanies  or  miraculous 
voices,  or  any  revelations  put  in  book  form — no 
one  of  these  testimonies  of  God,  or  all  combined, 
short  of  God  himself  entering  into  current  events 
with  the  thrill  and  emphasis  of  the  tramp  of 
divinity,  would  be  sufficient  to  establish  a  posi- 
tive practical  faith  and  knowledge  of  God  on  the 
earth.  In  some  manner  it  w^as  needful  that  the 
Almighty  come  into  the  march  of  events  as  their 
master,  and  as  the  protector  and  helper  and  ruler 
of  men.  In  this  direction  lies  the  wondrous 
power  of  the  Incarnation.  This  is  conceded. 
And  it  is  conceded  that  whatever  the  history  of 
the  Hebrew  stock  was  before  the  age  of  the 
prophets,  God  had  in  some  way  traveled  down 
the  successive  stages  of  that  history,  revealing 
himself  in  connection  with  it,  till  in  the  time  of 
the  prophets  these  seers  had  a  tolerably  distinct 
and  accurate  knowledge  of  him  as  the  one  true, 
holy,  and  merciful  God.  Here  was  a  remarkable 
revelation  of  God  by  means  of  some  historical 
process.     The  critics  admit  this,  and  then  step  in 


298  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

and  throw  dust  on  the  history  which  gives  the 
successive  stages  and  epochs  of  the  process.  They 
put  out  the  ancient  evidences  disclosing  the  pro- 
cedure. But  this  is  not  all.  The  sacred  history, 
which  they  thus  becloud  and  impeach,  was  a  ve- 
hicle not  only  to  deliver  the  knowledge  of  God 
to  the  Hebrews,  but  to  transmit  that  knowledge 
down  to  our  day.  Men  now  learn  much  about 
the  character  and  government  of  God  in  relation 
to  nations  and  individuals  by  studying  these  his- 
torical proceedings.  The  history  is  radiant  still 
with  divine  light.  Revelations  of  God  are  yet 
streaming  off  from  it.  But  the  Higher  Criticism 
comes  up  to  it  and  puts  out  or  darkens,  one  after 
another,  these  sacred  lights.  What  we  have  taken 
to  be  history,  it  tells  us,  is  not  history  at  all.  It 
is  the  romancing  of  later  writers.  The  historical 
fabric  is  dissolved,  and  the  revelations  of  God 
dependent  on  it  logically  disappear.  If  the  his- 
torical setting  is  unreal,  then  all  the  self-disclos- 
ures of  God  in  that  way  are  unreal,  and  all  this 
knowledge  is  illusory.  We  can  no  longer  go  to 
the  Old  Testament  and  see  a  transparency  reveal- 
ing the  principles  of  God's  government  for  all  time, 
and  hence  learn  the  real  nature  and  character  of 
God  as  related  to  states,  and  the  permanency  and 
inexorableness  of  the  law  that  it  is  only  as  a 
people  obey  and  honor  him  that  they  can  have 
his  favor  and  prosper.  This  theistic  knowledge, 
the  most  practical  and  realistic  we  have  aside 
from  the  Incarnation,  shrivels  and  disappears  in 
its  source.     If  it  is  said  the  world  has  this  know!- 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      299 

edge  now  and  we  need  not  fear  losing  it,  we  must 
remember  the  fearful  tendency  in  human  nature 
to  fall  from  high  spiritual  conceptions.  We  can- 
not have  one  of  the  sources  of  the  knowledge  of 
God,  especially  one  so  important  as  this,  taken 
away  without  inexpressible  damage.  The  world 
needs  still  this  radiation  from  Old  Testament  his- 
tory, and  whoever  impairs  its  volume  or  brightness 
by  degrading  the  history  arrests  a  source  of 
moral  hfe  to  mankind. 

7.  It  rejects  the  natural  order  of  the  develop- 
ment of  religion  and  substitutes  an  order  based 
on  superficial  and  mechanical  considerations. 

In  considering  the  development  of  religion  we 
should  have  reference  to  the  elements  which  char- 
acterize it  as  a  religion.  We  are  to  look  at  it  in 
its  approaches  to  a  spiritual  system,  rather  than 
at  its  movements  in  respect  to  form  and  organ- 
ization. There  are,  doubtless,  two  lines  of  prog- 
ress, one  toward  spirituality — that  is,  in  the  re- 
ligion itself,  and  one  toward  form  and  organiza- 
tion— a  mere  appurtenance  to  the  religion  proper ; 
and  we  might  follow  the  course  of  the  religious 
system  along  either  one  of  these  lines  of  progress. 
But  it  is  evident  that  the  important  line  is  that 
which  traces  it  as  a  religion,  the  actual  spiritual 
life  that  enters  men's  hearts.  This  is  the  order 
recorded  in  the  Old  Testament.  God  revealed 
himself  to  Abraham  and  his  children,  and  took 
them  into  a  conscious  covenant  relation  with  him- 
self. The  revelation  and  the  service  required 
were  at  first  simple  and  primitive.     Up  to  this 


300  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

point  the  religion  was  a  family  religion.  In  the 
time  of  Moses  the  religion,  while  it  addressed  itself 
to  the  nation,  degraded  and  sensuous  by  long 
bondage,  received  far  deeper  and  richer  theistic 
and  ethical  elements,  and  at  the  same  time  took 
on  a  complex  ritualism  adapted  to  their  training. 
The  prophets  introduced  a  great  advance  in  the 
practical  emphasis  laid  on  the  moral  and  spiritual 
elements.  The  real  religious  light,  both  theistic 
and  ethical,  which  shines  from  the  teachings  of 
these  men,  whose  mission  was  to  represent  God 
to  the  people,  proclaim  righteousness,  and  de- 
nounce immorality  and  formalism,  was  in  lustre 
about  midway  between  the  morning  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch  and  the  midday  splendor  of  the  age  of 
Christ  and  the  apostles.  If  the  dawn  was  in  the 
time  of  Abraham,  the  morning  in  the  age  of 
Moses,  and  the  noon  in  the  days  of  Christ,  the 
intermediate  forenoon  was  in  the  period  of  the 
prophets.  John  Stuart  Mill  saw  this,  and  says : 
*'  Whoever  can  divest  himself  of  the  habit  of  read- 
ing the  Bible  as  if  it  were  one  book,  which  until 
lately  was  equally  inveterate  in  Christians  and  in 
unbelievers,  sees  with  admiration  the  vast  inter- 
val between  the  morality  and  religion  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, or  even  of  the  historical  books,  and  the 
morality  and  religion  of  the  prophecies,  a  dis- 
tance as  wide  as  between  these  and  the  Gospels  " 
C  Rep.  Govt."). 

Now  this  is  the  kind  of  progress  actually  re- 
corded in  the  sacred  books ;  and  this,  I  say,  is  the 
natural  order.     This  is  the  order  of  the  religious 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      301 

life  of  a  child,  as  well  as  of  the  race  in  its  child- 
hood. As  in  the  patriarchal  age,  so  the  first 
religious  instruction  of  a  child  is  a  few  simple 
positive  references  to  God.  Then,  as  in  the  time 
of  Moses,  there  is  instruction  in  forms  and  ob- 
servances. After  these,  in  maturer  years,  as  in 
the  age  of  the  prophets,  comes  emphasis  on  the 
ethical 'and  spiritual  elements.  And  lastly,  as  in 
the  time  of  Christ,  supreme  attention  is  paid  to 
the  vital  principles  and  spirit  of  the  gospel.  The 
Bible  record  is  the  record  of  this  true  order  of 
progress  in  religion.  It  brings  out  clearly  the 
divine  movement  from  what  was  dogmatic,  out- 
ward ;  then  formal,  ritualistic,  legal ;  then  ethical, 
conscientious,  to  what  was  at  last  a  true,  vital, 
spiritual  religion,  of  the  final  type. 

The  reconstructors  fail  to  recognize  this  prog- 
ress in  the  religion  itself,  and  fix  their  eye  on  the 
movement  toward  manifestation.  They  seem  to 
think  that  the  only  way  in  which  we  are  to  view 
the  development  of  the  religion  of  Israel  is  in 
reference  to  form  and  organization.  Taking  this 
superficial  and  mechanical  view,  they  reason  that 
the  first  thing  in  giving  this  religion  to  the  world 
was  for  some  parties  to  have  it  in  their  hearts ; 
and  as  there  was,  confessedly,  great  interest  in 
forms  and  organization  subsequent  to  the  early 
prophets,  they  assume  that  the  religion  in  men's 
hearts  to  be  expressed  in  that  way  was  then  a  fresh 
thing.  This  is  their  order:  first,  the  priestly  and 
Levitical  faith,  then  the  priestly  and  Levitical 
ceremonial ;  first,  the  belief  in  a  central  place  of 


302  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

worship  and  in  the ,  sacrifices  there,  then  the 
details  of  the  law  regulating  them.  Things  must 
be  in  this  order,  because  they  are  looking  at  ex- 
ternals, and  they  are  governed  by  theories,  not  by 
the  extant  records. 

To  maintain  this  view,  the  whole  scriptural 
account  must  be  recast.  The  statements  incon- 
sistent with  it  must  be  thrown  out,  and  the  rest 
recombined  and  recolored.  These  men  are  mighty 
in  the  Scriptures.  They  speak  much  of  redactors. 
They  themselves  are  heroic  redactors.  No  one 
of  whom  they  write  in  the  age  of  Ezra  could 
have  equaled  them  in  throwing  around  the  sacred 
writings  with  a  free  and  unscrupulous  hand.  And 
all  this  they  do  to  save  themselves  from  the 
necessity  of  believing  that  the  priestly  and  Le- 
vitical  law  could  have  been  given  by  Moses,  and 
remained  comparatively  inoperative  during  the 
period  of  degeneracy  that  followed  the  occupation 
of  Palestine  till  the  time  of  the  kings  and  the 
preaching  of  the  prophets.  To  them  it  is  easier 
to  suppose  that  in  a  dark,  besotted,  immoral, 
idolatrous  age — such  as  all  regard  the  age  pre- 
ceding the  prophets  to  have  been — a  monotheistic, 
ethical,  and  comparatively  spiritual  religion  could 
spring  up  naturally  almost,  and  come  bounding 
into  view  without,  so  far  as  we  know,  human  or 
divine  father,  than  to  suppose  that  God  helped 
Moses  to  the  details  of  the  religious  system,  and 
that  portions  of  it  remained  centuries  before  the 
nation  was  in  a  condition  to  give  them  more  than 
a  partial  application.     They  are  ready  to  believe 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      303 

this  great  moral  miracle — the  genesis  of  the  re- 
ligion of  the  prophets  from  Canaanite  surroundings 
and  uncertain  divine  revelations,  without  the  full 
rich  Mosaic  antecedents  recorded  in  Scripture — 
rather  than  set  aside  their  superficial  theory  of  the 
progress  of  religion,  and  adopt  the  account  which 
reveals  the  natural  order  of  development  in  the 
religion  itself. 

8.  It  reflects  dishonor  on  the  propJicts.  Osten- 
sibly it  makes  much  of  them.  They  were  the 
light-bearers  who  leaped  forth  from  the  dark  ages, 
preceding  with  torches  blazing  with  celestial 
flame.  They  uttered  words  that  ring  of  righteous- 
ness and  justice.  They  denounced  all  hypocrisy 
and  hollow  sacrifices.  They  stood  before  kings 
and  priests  and  people  in  the  name  of  Jehovah. 
They  were  the  earthly  head  of  a  theocracy  that 
demanded  righteousness.  They  were  the  incarna- 
tion of  ethics.  All  this  is  admitted.  Yet,  accord- 
ing to  the  critics,  it  was  under  the  outburst  of  re- 
ligious light  which  came  through  them,  under  the 
inspiration  and  impulse  of  their  leadership  and  in 
their  age,  that  the  great  redactions  of  the  ma- 
terials of  sacred  literature  and  the  present  formu- 
lation of  the  ceremonial  law  took  place.  Some 
even  hint  that  Jeremiah  winked  at  it,  and  Ezekiel 
himself  took  a  hand  in  it.  The  men  who  were 
the  most  earnest  for  righteousness  of  any  the 
world  has  ever  seen,  who  left  a  literature  compact 
and  crystalline  of  conscience  next  to  the  Moral 
Law  itself,  whose  writings  reflect  still  the  voice  of 
God  through  the  ages  like  the  perpetual  thunder- 


804  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

ings  of  Mt.  Sinai — these  men  to  stand  by  and  be 
silent  when  the  stupendous  fabrication  of  history 
takes  place !  They  to  be  spectators  when  the 
whole  Levitical  legislation  is  devised,  written  out, 
and  skillfully  intertwined  with  a  fabricated  history 
of  the  preceding  period,  and  the  whole  successfully 
imposed  on  the  nation  and  succeeding  ages,  and 
not  a  lisp  of  remonstrance  or  sign  of  disapproval 
from  their  righteous  lips !  The  possibility  of  the 
success  of  such  an  imposition  is  itself  sufficiently 
incredible.  A  new  religion  virtually,  with  vast 
and  complicated  details,  claiming  to  have  been, 
vitally  and  historically,  interwoven  with  the  life  of 
the  people  for  ages,  coming  suddenly  into  sight 
and  put  in  writing,  and  the  writing  ever  after  held 
in  unquestioning  reverence  as  genuine  and  authori- 
tative history,  as  if  reciting  the  actual  occurrences 
of  the  past!  There  is  no  legerdemain  like  that 
elsewhere.  But  to  suppose  that  all  this  could  go 
on  under  the  eye  of  the  prophets,  these  preachers 
of  righteousness,  these  bearers  of  the  ethical  light 
of  the  world !  If  such  deception  were  to  be 
palmed  off  on  the  world,  the  critics  have  selected 
the  most  improbable  age  and  the  most  unnatural 
spectators  for  its  success — the  period  of  the  de- 
termined, fearless,  ethical  prophets,  the  relentless, 
fiery  preachers  of  righteousness. 

9.  It  discredits  Christ  and  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  in  their  estimate  of  the  Penta- 
teuch and  the  Old  Testament  history.  Whenever 
they  speak  of  them  they  refer  to  them  in  terms 
of  undoubting  confidence  and  reverence.       It  is 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      305 

impossible  that  they  could  have  held  any  such 
view  of  them  as  that  held  by  these  reconstruc- 
tors.  No  one  can  doubt  that  such  an  attempted 
reconstruction  in  their  day  would  have  been  held 
by  them  as  sacrilege.  If  we  accept  this  modern 
theory  we  part  company  with  all  the  scriptural 
writers.  A  history  which  Christ  and  the  apostles 
represent  as  reality  to  them  becomes  romance  to 
us. 

10.  It  makes  biblical  theology  unsatisfactory 
and  unprofitable.  Biblical  theology  is  religious 
doctrine  in  its  historical  position,  with  the  color, 
tone,  quality  of  its  historical  setting.  The  doc- 
trine must  be  seen  in  the  lights  and  shades  that 
play  around  it  in  its  own  age  and  under  the  con- 
ception of  the  individual  writers.  Hence,  if  there 
is  any  uncertainty  about  the  genuineness  and 
truth  of  the  writings  or  the  period  of  the  writ- 
ings, the  basis  of  the  study  drops  out.  It  is  im- 
possible, in  that  case,  to  put  the  true  historical 
estimate  on  them  and  be  certain  that  we  are 
viewing  them  in  their  historical  surroundings.  If 
there  are  a  half  dozen  Isaiahs,  or  only  two  for 
that  matter,  a  first  and  a  second  ;  and  if  the  first 
is  a  definite  historical  person,  occupying  a  fixed 
position  and  writing  a  known  portion  of  the  book, 
then  there  may  be  an  analysis  and  gathering  up 
of  his  teachings  in  relation  to  the  state  of  religion 
and  the  condition  of  the  world  at  that  time,  and 
so  a  biblical  theology  of  that  treatise.  But  if  the 
remainder  of  the  so-called  Book  of  Isaiah  is  a 
compend  from  many  writers  scattered  all  along 


306  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

from  the  time  of  Hezeklah  till  after  the  exile,  oi 
is  the  production  of  a  single  second  Isaiah  of  un- 
known age  and  surroundings,  it  is  impossible  to 
fit  its  teachings  into  the  complex  historical  move- 
ment of  any  one  age,  and  so  have  them  deliver  to 
us  a  true  biblical  theology.  What  is  true  of  the 
Book  of  Isaiah  is  true  of  the  other  books  into 
which  the  new  criticism  introduces  miscellaneous 
authors.  Take  the  Pentateuch.  Shall  the  new 
critic,  looking  toward  biblical  theology,  start 
with  the  Pentateuch  as  it  is?  That  would 
give  a  kind  of  biblical  theology  of  the  final 
redactors,  whoever  they  may  be,  no  one  knows, 
and  of  their  age,  whatever  that  may  be,  no 
one  knows.  A  pretty  unsatisfactory  result ! 
Or  shall  he  start  with  the  first  results  of 
Higher  Criticism — the  analysis  of  the  books 
into  their  objective  elements  —  and  give  us  a 
biblical  theology  of  each  one  of  these  elements? 
We  have  by  this  time  a  lively  medley — biblical 
theologies  running  into  each  other  in  grotesque 
confusion,  and  varying  interminably  with  the 
critics.  But  this  is  not  the  end.  The  Higher 
Critics  detect  more  than  one  redactor  in  the  same 
book — redactor  beyond  redactor  in  separate  and 
independent  lines;  and  each  of  the  blind  series  is 
to  be  biblically  theologized,  and  have  his  contri- 
bution separately  noted  and  put  in  a  book !  We 
have  under  these  circumstances,  instead  of  one 
biblical  theology  of  each  book,  endless  biblical 
theologettes,  each  based  on  an  excerpt  of  the 
book,  having  no  fixed  and  determinate  boundaries, 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      307 

belonging  to  an  uncertain  age  and  author,  and 
separated  from  the  rest  by  the  infalHbihty  of  the 
critic. 

So  the  promising,  robust,  manly,  modern 
science  of  biblical  theology  goes  off  in  invisible 
spray  and  nothingness.  The  materials  with  which 
it  has  to  do,  under  the  touch  of  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism, are  tremulous  and  fugitive,  and  no  science 
can  be  built  up  on  them. 

II.  The  bearing  of  this  criticism  on  the  doc- 
trine of  inspiration  also  should  not  be  over- 
looked. The  only  inspiration  possible  under  this 
theory  is  of  a  very  equivocal  order,  morally  and 
spiritually  ;  for  it  is  an  inspiration  that  does  not 
keep  the  sacred  writers  from  making  up  a  pre- 
tended framework  of  history  in  which  to  set  their 
characters  and  instructions.  It  does  not  interfere 
with  their  asserting  things  to  be  facts  which  never 
took  place.  It  does  not  stand  in  the  way  of  con- 
sciously antedating  and  representing  things  as 
having  occurred  centuries  before  which  really  oc- 
curred later,  or  of  deliberately  writing  after  the 
events  had  taken  place,  and  giving  the  writing  the 
form  of  prediction  and  passing  it  off  as  prophecy. 
It  does  not  stay  the  sacred  authors  from  writing 
out  of  their  own  intuitions  or  experience  or 
thoughts  and  reasonings,  and  claiming  that  these 
teachings  came  directly  from  God.  A  kind  of  in- 
spiration which  admits  of  all  these  duplicities  and 
falsities  must  be  accepted  as  true  if  this  criticism 
is  admitted.  Surely  inspiration  drops  down  to  a 
low  and  ignominious  plane  on  this  theory  !     No 


308  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

wonder  there  is  a  cry  all  over  the  world  from 
those  who  follow  the  critics  that  the  doctrine  of 
inspiration  must  be  recast !     Yes,  down-cast. 

Yet  these  men  are  in  great  perplexity.  The 
Scriptures — these  very  Scriptures — have  been  a 
transcendent  power  in  the  world.  They  have 
spoken  with  authority,  and  dominated  states  and 
generations  and  ages,  and  their  power  is  not  gone. 
The  critics  see  this,  and  desire  to  have  them  retain 
their  power  while  they  undermine  it.  They  ac- 
cordingly say  many  generous  and  beautiful  things 
upon  the  subject  of  inspiration.  The  writings 
which  are  its  product  are,  they  say,  the  exquisite 
bloom  and  fragrance  of  the  Hebrew  stock,  diviner 
than  anything  that  blossomed  on  the  Grecian 
stem,  or  the  Roman  or  Anglo-Saxon,  even  in  a 
Shakespeare.  There  is  a  genius  for  religion  as 
there  is  a  genius  for  the  beautiful,  a  genius  for  au- 
ganization,  a  genius  for  military  affairs,  a  genius 
for  practical  life  ;  and  the  Hebrew  had  the  genius 
to  produce  a  religious  literature  for  the  world. 
The  divine  currents  flowing  in  this  naturalistic 
stock,  specially  breathed  upon  also,  it  may  be 
from  heaven,  shaped  and  modified  in  their  flow 
by  circumstances  and  experience,  decide  the 
quality  and  form  of  inspiration. 

This  is  an  attempt  to  hold  up  the  Scriptures  in 
the  air  while  the  support  on  which  they  rest  is 
taken  away — to  lift  them  by  rhetoric  and  pull 
them  down  by  logic.  It  is  evident  that  nothing 
sharply  and  divinely  authoritative  can  be  left  in 
them.     They  drop  down  in  kind  of  writing  to  the 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  a  Spent  Bible.      309 

level  of  the  productions  of  saints  whose  produc- 
tions do  not  happen  to  be  put  in  the  canon.  So 
not  only  is  a  large  part  of  the  history  (the  histori- 
cal  characters  and  the  central  facts  of  the  life  of 
Israel)  swept  away,  but  also  the  very  power  by 
which  a  revelation  in  language  and  a  direct  au- 
thoritative message  from  God  to  mankind  can  be 
produced.  All  are  gone.  We  are  left  bankrupt 
of  a  veritable  Bible,  and  of  the  power  by  which 
such  a  Bible  could  be  handed  over  to  mankind. 


OUTLINE  OF  THE  ESSAY. 


1.  The  Analysis  of  Documents. 

Its  Criteria  and  Method  of  Applying  Them. 
Argument  from  Material  Differences. 
Illustrated  by  Gen.  xiv. 

2.  The  Age  and  Mutual  Relations  of  the  Documents. 

The  Theory  as  to  J  and  E,  Relations  and  Age. 

The  Composition  and  Age  of  D. 

The  Theory  of  the  Age  and  Origin  of  P. 

8.  The  Work  of  the  Redactor. 
The  Production  of  D  J  E. 
Its  Combination  with  P. 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     313 


THE    DIFFICULTIES   OF  THE    NEW 
HYPOTHESIS. 

BY    PROF.    JACOB    STREIBERT,    A.M.,   THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  OF 
THE   DIOCESE   OF  OHIO,    GAMBIER,    O. 

In  attempting  to  set  forth  the  difficulties  which 
beset  the  latest  theory  concerning  the  Pentateuch, 
a  theory  based  upon  a  complicated  literary  prob- 
lem, involving  a  complete   reconstruction  of  the 
religious  history  of   Israel,  and  affecting  directly 
or  indirectly  the  interpretation  of  almost  every 
book  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
writer  must   in  some  way  limit  himself  so  as  to 
keep  within  the  bounds  proposed  in  this  series  of 
papers.     We  shall  therefore  confine  our  considera- 
tions to  the  difficulties  involved  in  the  statement 
of  the  hypothesis  and  in  the  evidence  on  which  it 
rests,  leaving  it  to  others  to  show  the  nature  of 
the  consequences  flowing  from  it  and  the  difficul- 
ties of  various  kinds  to  which  it  leads.     It  is  not 
our  object  in  this  essay  to  establish  the  traditional 
view  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
We  may  indeed   be  quite   prepared  to  give    up 
this  view  because  of  the  difficulties  it  involves, 
but  for  this  reason  to  adopt  another  theory  with- 
out considering  the  perplexities  into  which  it  may 
lead  us,  would  certainly  be  irrational.     Nor  does 
it  devolve  upon  us  to  propose  a  more  satisfactory 
theory  than   the  one  under  consideration,  or  to 
show  that  this  is  possible.     We  desire  simply  to 


314  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

call  attention  to  the  jnore  important  objections 
which  may  properly  be  made  to  this  theory  as 
formulated  by  its  most  distinguished  advocates, 
Wellhausen  and  Kuenen. 

I.  TJic  Analysis  of  Dociuncnts. — The  state- 
ment that  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  is 
not  the  work  of  one  author,  but  a  compilation  of 
several  independent  writings,  has  become  almost 
axiomatic  in  the  judgment  of  modern  critics,  and 
it  must  be  admitted  that  this  view  offers  a  simple 
and  natural  explanation  of  certain  phenomena, 
meeting  us  very  clearly  in  Genesis,  and  to  some 
extent  at  least  in  the  later  books.  To  contend 
that  there  is  no  occasion  for  such  a  theory,  no 
reasonable  ground  for  applying  a  critical  analysis 
to  the  Pentateuch,  is  simply  to  close  one's  eyes  to 
patent  facts.  The  time  for  justifying  this  analysis 
on  a  priori  grounds  has  long  since  passed  by. 

At  the  same  time,  however,  we  must  insist  that 
the  principles  on  which  it  is  conducted  shall  be 
fair  and  just,  that  its  criteria  shall  be  simple,  clear, 
objective  and  applied  to  all  parts  alike.  We 
must  demand  that  all  the  facts  presented  in  this 
literary  problem  shall  be  fairly  and  fully  recog- 
nized, and  above  all,  that  the  desire  to  prove  a 
theory  shall  not  be  permitted  to  obscure  any  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary.  The  right  to  this  demand 
is  fully  grounded  in  the  tremendous  issues  in- 
volved. We  are  not  dealing  with  a  simple  liter- 
ary question  the  decision  of  which  affects  nothing 
beyond  itself,  but  with  a  matter  standing  in  the 
most  vital  relation  to  the  whole  Old   Testament, 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     315 

to  the  interpretation  of  its  history,  its  prophecy, 
its  poetry,  and  its  law.  Now,  does  the  document 
analysis  on  which  the  theory  under  consideration 
is  built  meet  these  demands?  Does  it  commend 
itself  as  fair  and  unbiased  ?  We  believe  not. 
We  regard  it  as  open  to  objections  so  serious  and 
weighty  that  one  may  well  be  pardoned  for  with- 
holding his  assent  to  any  theory  based  upon  it. 

Granting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the 
Pentateuch  is  a  compilation,  what  are  the  criteria 
made  use  of  for  separating  it  into  its  component 
parts  ?  First  of  all,  peculiarities  of  language  aiid 
style.  The  starting  point  of  the  analysis,  as  is 
well  known,  is  the  variation  in  the  use  of  the 
names  Yahwe  and  Elohim  throughout  the  book 
of  Genesis.  This  was  for  many  years  considered 
the  only  trustworthy  clue.  Yet  critics  are  to-day 
unanimous  in  the  opinion  that  there  are  two  en- 
tirely distinct  documents  characterized  as  Elo- 
histic,  and  that  one  of  them  is  moreover  so  closely 
combined  and  commingled  with  the  Yahwistic 
document  that  it  is  often  impossible  to  separate 
the  two,  and  quite  as  impossible  to  determine 
their  relation  to  one  another  as  regards  age  and 
mode  of  combination.  At  the  same  time,  while 
the  fact  may  not  in  the  end  prove  of  vital  impor- 
tance, it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  not  only  in 
the  Pentateuch  but  in  other  parts  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament as  well,  we  find  the  same  peculiar  inter- 
change of  the  divine  names.  Before  finally  con- 
cluding that  this  is  a  proof  of  different  authorship 
in  the  Pentateuch,  the  critics  should  show  us  that, 


316  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

wherever  else  found,  the  same  conclusion  may 
and  must  be  drawn.  We  may,  in  passing,  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  in  more  than  one  in- 
stance the  critics  assume  that  the  final  redactor,  a 
copyist,  or  some  one  else,  willfully  or  accidentally 
altered  the  name  Elohim  to  Yahwe  in  the  text, 
e.g.  Gen.  xvii.  i;  xxi.  i.  The  argument  would 
certainly  be  stronger  if  it  involved  no  such  ques- 
tionable expedients. 

We  are  hereby  naturally  led  to  inquire  on  what 
grounds  the  critics  justify  this  assumption.  The 
answer  is  that  the  several  documents  are  distin- 
guished by  other  linguistic  peculiarities  as  well  as 
by  differences  of  style  and  manner  of  treatment. 
A  great  deal  is  made  of  the  argument  from  style, 
and  often  with  good  reason  ;  but  it  must  also  be 
said  that  it  becomes  almost  absurd  when  applied 
to  small  paragraphs,  or  even  verses  and  parts  of 
verses,  in  a  legal  document  or  simple  narrative. 
To  argue  from  long  and  connected  sections  which 
afford  some  opportunity  for  observing  the  writer's 
style,  the  structure  of  his  sentences  and  the  habit 
of  his  mind,  to  others  in  which  these  same  char- 
acteristics reappear,  is  one  thing  ;  to  pretend  to 
be  able  to  judge  of  the  authorship  of  single  and 
often  isolated  sentences  or  parts  of  sentences  on 
any  such  grounds,  a  totally  different  matter.  The 
latter  is  subjective  criticism  of  the  first  water,  and 
to  what  empty  conclusions  such  criticism  will 
lead  has  been  shown  over  and  over  again  in  the 
case  of  almost  every  book  of  the  Old  Testament. 

But  the  favorite  criterion  by  which  critics  are 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     017 

led  in  their  analysis  is  tJie  use  of  particular  words 
and  expressions.  This  is  nearly  always  their  main 
reliance ;  and  certainly  when  one  looks  at  the  lists 
of  words  said  to  be  characteristic  each  of  some 
particular  writer,  the  impression  that  they  have 
proved  their  point  is  strong.  But  let  us  look  at 
the  other  side.  How  are  these  lists  made  up? 
and  may  all  the  words  which  they  contain  fairly 
be  called  characteristic  ?  In  a  certain  passage 
called  Elohistic,  for  instance,  is  found  a  certain 
number  of  less  frequently  used  words,  nouns  and 
verbs.  Many  of  these,  let  us  say,  are  used  in 
other  Elohistic  sections,  but  do  not  occur  in  any 
which  are  Yahwistic.  It  would  be  manifestly 
illogical  to  conclude  without  further  consideration 
that  such  words  are  characteristic  of  the  Elohim 
document,  and  on  the  strength  of  this  to  claim 
that  all  passages  in  which  one  or  more  of  these 
words  appear  belong  to  this  document.  One 
writer  may  have  a  fondness  for  certain  expressions, 
but  may  not  another  writer  also  use  them  occa- 
sionally ?  One  writer  uses  certain  technical  words, 
or  words  so  intimately  connected  with  the  idea 
they  express  that  they  are  the  inevitable  embodi- 
ment of  that  idea;  another  in  all  his  known 
writings  happens  to  have  no  occasion  to  use  them 
shall  we  then  conclude  that  a  section  of  narrative 
or  laws  whose  origin  is  in  question,  and  in  which 
this  technical  word  occurs  must  be  assigned  to 
the  first  writer  and  may  not  belong  to  the  second  ? 
Again,  is  it  reasonable  to  argue  from  words  which 
occur  but  a  few  times  at  best  that  all  passages  in 


S18  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

which  they  appear  belong  to  one  and  the  same 
writer?  It  seems  to  us  that  a  candid  examination 
of  the  Hsts  of  characteristic  words  must  not  only 
lead  to  the  exclusion  of  many  as  in  no  sense 
characteristic,  but  also  convince  one  that  they 
afford  a  criterion  which  must  be  very  cautiously 
applied.  When  in  one  series  of  connected  pas- 
sages indeed  we  find  one  word  used,  and  in 
another  series  another  and  synonymous  word  to 
express  the  same  idea,  the  conclusion  that  we 
have  in  this  case  a  characteristic  phrase  by  which 
the  authorship  of  otherwise  doubtful  sections  may 
be  determined,  would  probably  be  drawn  by  all. 
Unfortunately,  however,  the  number  of  such  cri- 
teria is  very  small. 

If  we  look  into  the  way  in  which  these  linguis- 
tic peculiarities  are  applied  for  the  purposes  of  the 
analysis  and  notice  the  results  to  which  they  lead, 
our  distrust  of  them  is  increased.  Very  fre- 
quently they  are  so  confused  and  intermingled 
that  the  same  passage  is  assigned  by  one  critic  to 
one  document,  by  another  to  a  different  one,  by  a 
third  to  the  redactor  or  compiler.  Again,  after 
having  come  to  a  conclusion  in  regard  to  the  ori- 
gin of  a  passage  and  assigned  it  to  a  certain  doc- 
ument, the  critic  is  frequently  met  by  a  word  or 
phrase  that  is  called  characteristic  of  a  different 
document ;  but  he  is  not  long  embarrassed  :  he 
simply  calls  the  word  an  insertion  or  interpolation 
for  which  the  redactor  is  probably  responsible. 
And  what  shall  be  said  of  the  dissection  of  a  per- 
fectly simple  and  connected  narrative  into   frag- 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     319 

merits  said  to  be  taken  from  two  or  three  docu- 
ments and  chaotically  mixed  together,  because 
certain  words  found  in  it  are  called  peculiar  to 
those  documents  ?  It  would  appear  more  critical, 
not  to  say  rational,  to  infer  that  these  words  are 
not  characteristic  at  all  and  therefore  have  no  evi- 
dential value  whatever  as  regards  the  question  of 
authorship.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  argument 
from  the  use  of  words  is  largely  based  on  the  sup- 
position that  an  author  in  Hebrew  could  hardly 
express  a  thought  in  more  than  one  form  ;  that  the 
language  was  so  stiff  and  stereotyped  that  modi- 
fications, synonyms,  were  almost  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. But  to  exclude  the  possibility,  at  least,  that 
an  author  may  vary  occasionally  the  expressions 
he  uses  by  such  an  unwarranted  assumption  as 
this,  not  at  all  borne  out  by  the  facts  of  the  case, 
seems  hardly  scientific.  However,  if  the  critics 
are  correct  in  this  view  it  would  appear  that  such 
stereotyped  forms  of  speech  must  cease  to  be  in 
any  sense  characteristic,  and  may  therefore  be 
expected  in  one  document  as  well  as  in  another, 
whenever  the  occasion  for  their  use  arises. 

The  analysis  of  documents  is  also  guided  by 
alleged  differences  and  contradictions  between  their 
respective  contents,  whether  narratives  or  laws. 
The  argument  is  perfectly  legitimate  and  often  of 
great  force.  There  are  difficulties,  which  it  is  the 
duty  of  criticism  to  explain,  not  merely  to  explain 
away.  But  a  criticism  which  for  the  sake  of  a 
theory  multiplies  and  exaggerates  difficulties,  and 
refuses  to  accept  a  simple  and  natural  explanation 


330  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

whenever  it  may  be  found,  can  hardly  expect  to 
command  the  confidence  of  sober  scholars  who 
are  more  concerned  about  the  truth  than  about 
any  theory.  It  is  no  injustice,  at  any  rate  to 
many  supporters  of  the  latest  hypothesis,  to  say 
that  they  are  open  to  this  charge.  Formal  dif- 
ferences are  put  before  us  as  material ;  failures  to 
mention  or  at  least  hint  at  some  acquaintance 
with  related  facts  elsewhere  recorded  are  made 
equal  to  denials  or  contradictions  ;  and  this  is  done 
not  occasionally  but  in  nearly  every  chapter.  It 
is  safe  to  assert  that  the  writings  of  almost  any 
author,  subjected  to  a  similar  criticism,  would 
develop  the  same  kind  of  divergences,  especially 
if  any  statement  tending  to  remove  or  explain 
such  divergence  be  attributed  to  the  harmonizing 
efforts  of  a  compiler. 

In  support  of  what  has  been  said  thus  far,  it 
might  suffice  to  refer  to  the  fourth  essay  in  this 
series,  where  ample  illustrations  of  the  difficulties 
involved  in  the  analysis  will  be  found  ;  but  by 
way  of  additional  evidence,  let  us  notice  the  ap- 
plication of  current  critical  processes  to  a  single 
chapter,  taken  quite  at  random,  of  the  Book  of 
Genesis,  the  14th.  We  are  told  by  Kuenen  and 
Dillmann  that  this  chapter  is  derived  from  a  differ- 
ent source  from  those  which  precede  and  follow. 
On  what  evidence?  Because  it  does  not  contain 
the  least  hint  of  the  wickedness  of  the  men  of 
Sodom,  and  because,  conversely,  the  author  of  ch. 
xviii.  and  xix.  knows  nothing  whatever  of  the 
conquest  of  the  five  cities  nor  of  the  rescue  of 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     321 

their  Inhabitants  by  Abraham.  It  is  also  distin- 
guished from  the  other  chapters  by  marked  Hn- 
guistic  pecuHarities,  and  forms  part  of  the  general 
history  of  nations,  unlike  other  narratives  about 
Abraham.  To  what  author,  then,  shall  it  be  as- 
signed? Dillmann  thinks  that,  since  in  other  re- 
spects than  those  alluded  to  it  agrees  with  other 
portions  of  Genesis  in  language,  and  also  contains 
references  to  other  sections  as  well  as  explanatory 
glosses,  it  must  be  regarded  as  a  very  old  story 
which  has  been  incorporated  by  one  of  the  three 
narrators,  J,  E  or  P.  Elohim,  in  v.  i8,  would 
point  to  E  or  P,  and  since  this  section  does  not 
agree  with  P's  ordinary  mode  of  describing  such 
things,  nor  with  the  language  peculiar  to  P,  there- 
fore it  is  to  be  assigned  to  E.  Yahwe,  in  v.  22,  is 
probably  an  interpolation.  The  redactor,  how- 
ever, added  to  the  original  form  of  the  story  such 
explanatory  remarks  as  are  found  in  vv.  2,  3,  7, 
etc.,  and  worked  into  it  vv.  17-20,  which  can  only 
have  been  wTitten  by  a  member  of  the  kingdom 
of  Judah,  whereas  E  belonged  to  the  northern 
kingdom.  Kuenen,  on  the  other  hand,  calls  this 
a  fragment  of  a  post-exilic  version  of  Abraham's 
life  worked  in  by  the  redactor,  and  asserts  cate- 
gorically that  it  does  not  belong  to  J  E,  from 
which  it  differs  in  point  of  form,  besides  being  ex- 
cluded by  ch.  xviii.  sq.  Neither  can  it  be  taken 
from  P,  although  containing  some  of  P's  charac- 
teristic words,  for  it  falls  outside  the  scope  of  that 
work  and  is  written  in  a  wholly  different  style.* 

*  Cf.  Dillmann,  Genesis,  4te  Aufl.,  pp.  218,  sq.;  Kuenen, 
Hexateuch,  pp.  143,  324. 


823  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Can  this  soberly  be  called  scientific  criticism? 
Can  the  conclusions  drawn  from  the  results  of 
such  analysis  commend  themselves  as  even  plau- 
sible? It  seems  to  us,  in  view  of  all  these  facts, 
that  very  much  yet  remains  to  be  done  in  estab- 
lishing and  making  secure  the  very  foundation  of 
this  and  any  similar  theory,  in  freeing  the  analysis 
of  documents  from  its  defects,  inconsistencies  and 
uncertainties  by  an  unbiassed  and  rational  treat- 
ment of  all  the  facts.  We  are  by  no  means  satis- 
fied to  build  largely  or  confidently  on  such  uncer- 
tain, shifting  ground. 

2.  Ao;-e  and  Mutual  Relations  of  the  Documents. 
■ — After  having  analyzed  the  books  of  the  Penta- 
teuch and  determined  the  contents  of  the  four 
great  documents  supposed  to  be  merged  in  one, 
the  critics  have  attempted  to  ascertain  the  prob- 
able age  of  each  and  the  mode  of  their  combina- 
tion. Not  many  years  ago  the  almost  unanimous 
opinion  of  German  scholars  was  to  the  effect  that 
Deuteronomy  marked  the  chronological  as  well  as 
the  for-mal  close  of  the  legislation,  while  the  docu- 
ment designated  now  as  P  was  the  earliest  of  the 
four,  dating  probably  from  the  age  of  Solomon, 
though  incorporating  more  ancient  fragments. 
In  the  new  hypothesis  all  this  is  radically  changed. 
Deuteronomy  is  still  indeed  assigned  to  the  time  of 
Josiah,  but  the  large  part  of  the  Pentateuch  in- 
cluded in  P  is  said  to  be  mainly  post-exilic. 

As  to  the  relations  of  J  and  E,  while  there  is  gen- 
eral agreement  that  they  originated  in  the  eighth 
or  ninth  century  B.  C,  critics  differ  widely  as  to 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     323 

their  comparative  age  and  the  mode  of  their  com- 
bination. Wellhausen  thinks  he  has  found  evi- 
dence showing  their  independent  origin  and  grad- 
ual modification,  each  passing  through  three 
editions  or  recensions,  which  he  distinguishes  as 
J'  J^  J^  and  E^  E^  E^  and  being  afterward  united 
by  a  third  writer.  Kuenen,  while  also  regarding 
J  as  older  than  E,  holds  that  the  latter  was  writ- 
ten by  an  author  acquainted  with  and  building  on 
J,  that  both  passed  through  distinctively  Judean 
editions,  and  were  finally  united  about  the  begin- 
ning of  the  sixth  century.  But  many  others  re- 
gard E  as  older  than  J,  some  holding  to  their 
independence,  some  insisting  that  E  was  one  of 
the  main  authorities  used  by  the  writer  of  J. 
Evidently,  therefore,  the  attempt  to  establish  the 
relations  between  these  two  documents  has  not 
yet  been  successful,  and  what  we  are  told  con- 
cerning the  process  which  made  them  one  only 
confirms  our  hesitation  to  accept  the  conclusions 
of  the  critics.  Kuenen  acknowledges  the  highly 
intricate  nature  of  this  process,  at  times  scrupu- 
lously conservative  in  regard  to  the  documents, 
sometimes  harmonizing,  sometimes  independent 
and  free.^"  Imagine  two  documents  covering  the 
same  ground,  written  by  men  of  similar  training 
and  habits  of  mind,  then  combined  by  a  redactor 
who  performs  his  work  in  the  manner  just  indi- 
cated, and  would  not  any  unprejudiced  thinker 
conclude  as  a  practical  certainty  that  the  attempt 
to  separate  the  elements  so  inconsistently  and 
*  Hexateuch,  p.  161. 


324  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

arbitrarily   mingled  ,  together    must    end    in   fail- 
ure? 

Further,  as  to  their  age,  Kuenen  says,*  "  The 
chief  consideration  that  forbids  us  to  assign  a 
higher  antiquity  [than  the  ninth  century]  to  the 
*  prophetic  '  narratives  is  based  on  their  contents. 
The  sagas  about  the  patriarchs,  the  exodus  and  the 
conquest,  presuppose  the  unity  of  the  people 
(which  only  came  into  existence  with  and  by  means 
of  the  monarchy)  as  a  long-accomplished  fact  which 
had  come  to  dominate  the  whole  conception  of 
the  past  completely."  The  proposition  that  the 
twelve  tribes,  with  a  common  ancestor,  a  common 
language,  religion  and  country,  were  not  one  peo- 
ple, and  had  no  consciousness  of  such  unity  until 
after  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy,  is  one 
we  are  by  no  means  prepared  to  accept  without 
some  proof.  National  unity  of  such  a  character 
as  to  make  the  origin  of  the  *'  sagas  "  alluded  to 
entirely  possible  existed  just  as  really,  to  say  the 
least,  before  the  time  of  Saul  as  after  the  time  of 
Rehoboam.  The  lack  of  an  organized  central 
government  controlling  all  the  tribes  cannot  out- 
weigh the  much  more  important  elements  of  unity 
existing  at  least  from  the  time  of  the  exodus, 
common  ancestry,  language  and  religion,  espe- 
cially when  they  looked  back  to  two  men  who  in 
the  past  were  guides  and  leaders  of  all  alike, 
Moses  and  Joshua.  To  make  the  unwarranted 
assumption  of  a  lack  of  unity  among  the  tribes 
the  chief  argument  in  favor  of  assigning  J  E  to 


*  Hexateuch, 


oor 


p.  'i-ZK:, 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     "325 

the  ninth  century  does  not  give  one  a  favorable 
impression  of  the  strength  of  the  position  which 
the  critics  maintain. 

Coming  next  in  the  order  of  time  is  the  docu- 
ment designated  D^  i.e.^  the  larger  portion  of 
Deuteronomy.  Before  passing  on  to  the  question 
of  its  age,  we  may  remark  that  the  divergent 
theories  as  to  the  original  form  of  this  document 
can  only  add  to  our  distrust  of  current  critical 
methods.  On  the  ground  of  formal  and  material 
differences  Wellhausen  assigns  the  code  of  laws 
in  ch.  xii.-xxvi.  and  the  hortatory  introduction 
in  ch.  v.-xi.  to  different  authors,  while  Kuenen 
regards  them  as  the  work  of  the  same  author, 
though  not  written  at  the  same  time,  the  code 
having  been  first  produced,  and  then  the  introduc- 
tion. Both,  however,  agree  in  ascribing  all  the 
remainder  of  the  book,  except  ch.  «sxxviii.  and 
a  few  verses  elsewhere,  to  a  later  writer.  Dill- 
mann,  on  the  other  hand,  with  many  others,  not 
only  holds  ch.  v.-xxvi.  to  have  been  the  work 
of  one  author,  consecutively  written,  but  also  as- 
signs to  the  same  writer  ch.  i.-iv.  and  xxvii.- 
xxxi.,  denying  the  existence  of  some  of  the  alleged 
difificulties  and  peculiarities,  accounting  for  others 
by  laying  them  to  the  charge  of  the  redactor. 
When,  on  critical  grounds,  such  diverse  views  are 
admissible,  and  that,  too,  in  regard  to  a  book 
whose  characteristics  of  language  and  style  are  so 
clearly  marked  as  those  of  Deuteronomy,  we  can- 
not help  concluding  that  the  method  is  wrong  or 
the  criteria  very  insufficient.     Even  granting  that, 


326  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

in  this  instance,  such  differences  among  the  critics 
may  not  be  very  important,  Ave  cannot  but  wonder 
at  their  arising  at  all,  since  the  critics  work  on 
the  same  principles  and  with  the  same  criteria. 

As  to  the  age  of  D^  though  it  may  expose  one 
to  the  contempt  of  the  critical  school  to  make  the 
confession,  we  are  compelled  to  say  that  what 
seems  to  them  almost  self-evident  and  axiomatic, 
that  this  document,  namely,  originated  in  or  just 
before  the  time  of  Josiah,  presents  to  us  one  of 
the  most  serious  difficulties  which  the  hypothesis 
involves.  Without  sharing  in  the  feeling  of  those 
who  would  call  the  work  a  forgery  if  by  any 
author  except  Moses,  we  are  yet  very  reluctant 
to  accept  a  theory  based  upon  the  assumption 
that  not  only  in  form  but  in  substance  the  book 
cannot  be  much  older  than  the  reign  of  Josiah. 
For  if  the  writer,  whatever  his  date,  was  trying  to 
impose  upon  the  people  new  laws  and  require- 
ments, and  to  win  for  them  respect  and  obedience 
by  falsely  representing  them  as  Mosaic,  then  the 
book  is,  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  words,  an  im- 
position and  a  fraud.  Before  coming  to  such  a 
conclusion  we  shall  insist  upon  subjecting  the 
evidence  brought  in  its  support  to  the  very  closest 
scrutiny. 

.  Of  this  evidence  the  story  of  Josiah's  reforma- 
tion related  in  2  Kings  xxii.  is  without  doubt  the 
most  important.  But  surely  an  argument  whose 
first  step  is  to  discredit  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
historian  upon  whose  narrative  it  proceeds  to  build, 
ought  not  to  come  upon  one  with  convincing  force. 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     327 

The  whole  story,  in  its  express  statements  no  less 
than  in  all  it  implies,  is  totally  opposed  to  the 
theory  based  upon  it.  Kuenen  acknowledges 
(Hexateuch,  p.  214)  that  the  fact  of  the  discovery 
of  the  book,  with  its  promulgation,  *'  does  not  in 
itself  prove  that  it  was  also  composed  about  the 
same  time.  But,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "  the  evi- 
dence derived  from  the  literature  of  Israel,  both 
before  and  after  Josiah's  reformation,  makes  it 
extremely  probable  that  this  was  the  case,  and 
the  probability  is  raised  almost  to  a  certainty  by 
a  minute  consideration  of  the  contents  of  the  deu- 
teronomic  legislation." 

As  to  the  first  point,  t/t^  evidence  of  the  litera- 
tjire,  it  may  be  replied  that  the  absence  of  allu- 
sions to  Deuteronomy  before  the  time  of  Josiah 
is  quite  as  well  accounted  for  by  the  loss  and  ne- 
glect of  the  book  for  no  one  knows  how  many 
years,  a  fact  testified  to  by  the  writer  of  the  book 
of  Kings,  as  by  the  unsupported  hypothesis  that 
it  was  not  in  existence.  At  the  same  time  we  are 
by  no  means  convinced  that  the  literature  which 
preceded  Josiah  shows  no  trace  of  the  influence  of 
Deuteronomy.  Aside  from  verbal  reminiscences, 
what  proof  have  the  critics  to  offer,  except  their 
theory,  that  Deuteronomy  presupposes  Hosea? 
May  we  not  with  at  least  as  much  force  urge  that 
this  prophet's  whole  spirit  and  teaching  can  be 
best  understood  on  the  supposition  of  his  famil- 
iarity with  deuteronomic  ideas  ?  In  regard  to  this 
argumentiwi  e  silentio  so  frequently  resorted  to  by 
the  critics,  it  has  been  well  said  by  Prof.  C.  A. 


328  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Briggs*  that  it  needs  to  be  guarded  from  misuse. 
*'  Before  one  could  conclude  from  the  silence  of 
the  Scriptures  as  to  the  Pentateuch,  that  it  was 
not  in  existence,  one  would  have  to  prove  that  it 
could  not  exist  without  being  known.  This  is 
difficult  to  prove."  The  narrative  of  the  author 
of  2  Kings,  which  we  see  not  the  slightest  reason 
for  distrusting,  explicitly  records  the  fact  that 
Deuteronomy  had  long  been  neglected  and  for- 
gotten in  some  remote  or  unused  chamber  of  the 
temple. 

An  examination  of  the  contents  of  the  deutero- 
nomic  legislation  seems  to  us  very  far  from  making 
it  almost  certain  that  it  originated  about  the  time 
of  Josiah.  What  possible  significance  at  that 
period  can  be  found  for  the  laws  about  extermi- 
nating the  Canaanites  (xx.  16-18)  and  Amalekites 
(xxv.  17-19)  against  the  destruction  of  trees  in  the 
siege  of  a  city  (xx.  19-20),  concerning  the  conquest 
of  cities  and  their  subsequent  treatment  (xx.  10- 
15)?  The  time  when  such  directions  were  appli- 
cable had  long  since  passed  by.  Is  it  conceivable 
that  there  was  no  law  concerning  the  choice  of  a 
king  until  a  short  time  before  the  kingdom  ceased  ? 
How  shall  we  explain  the  attitude  of  the  book 
toward  surrounding  nations  on  this  theory  of  its 
origin?  Deuteronomy  speaks  kindly  of  Egypt 
(xxiii.  7,  8),  but  the  feeling  shown  by  Jeremiah 
(ii.  18,  36)  was  of  a  totally  different  kind,  and  it 
was  in  battle  with  Pharaoh-Necho  that  Josiah  met 
his  death.  Deuteronomy  is  friendly  to  Edom  but 
*  Journal  Soc.  Bibl.  Lit.  and  Exeg.  1883,  p.  20. 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     839 

hostile  to  Moab  and  Ammon  (xxii.  7,  3-6) ;  com- 
pare with  this  Jeremiah's  utterances  about  the 
same  nations  (xHx.  17,  18  ;  xlviii.  47  ;  xHx.  6). 

The  answer  commonly  made  to  all  this  evidence 
is  that  old  laws  were  embodied  in  the  Deuterono- 
mic  legislation,  that  ancient  codes  were  made  the 
basis  of  the  new.  How  much  is  implied  in  this 
statement  ?  Prof.  Driver  has  spoken  of  Deuter- 
onomy as  **  the  prophetic  reproduction  and  ex- 
pansion of  an  earlier  legislation."  Dillmann, 
defining  the  limits  of  this  expansion,  speaks  of 
the  writer's  "  conviction  that  in  the  statutes  and 
ordinances  which  his  book  puts  into  the  mouth  of 
Moses  he  is  simply  restoring  for  the  new  times  the 
authority  of  the  old  Mosaic  law,  and  through  his 

*  Torah '  is  developing  the  very  spirit  of  the  Mo- 
saic institution.  He  could  not  have  made  this 
claim,"  Dillmann  continues,  "  if  he  had  not  been 
conscious  of  having  drawn  the  material    of   his 

*  statutes  and  ordinances'  from  the  oldest  codes, 
even  then  regarded  as  Mosaic,  and  the  High  Priest 
Hilkiah,  without  doubt  a  man  skilled  in  the  law, 
would  not  have  acknowledged  the  sepher  Jiattorah 
of  D  as  book  of  Moses  had  he  not  been  of  the 
same  conviction.  We  of  to-day  have  no  reason 
to  cast  doubt  upon  this  judgment  of  his  and  his 
contemporaries  "  (Comm.  Num.  Deut.  u.  Jos.  p. 
614  sq.).  To  the  theory  presented  in  this  form  we 
should  take  few,  if  any,  exceptions  if  the  evi- 
dence of  the  composition  of  Deuteronomy  in  ihe 
seventh  century  were  to  prove  convincing;  for  it 
is  after  all  of  slight  importance  to  us  when  or  by 


380  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

whom  the  book  was  written,  if  it  be  what  it 
everywhere  claims  to  be,  a  setting  forth  of  the 
law  of  Moses.  But  not  many,  we  imagine,  of 
recent  critics  hold  this  view.  Kuenen's  whole 
contention  is  that  the  very  spirit  of  Deuteronomy 
is  of  Josiah's  time,  based  on  the  prophetic  teach- 
ing which  preceded  it  and  only  by  this  made 
possible.  Hence  only  few  laws,  and  they  of  minor 
importance,  can  be  admitted  as  ancient ;  in  all 
essential  matters  the  code  is  new,  its  laws  concern- 
ing unity  of  worship,  feasts,  ritual,  priesthood — 
all  are  characteristic  of  Josiah's  time  and  unknown 
to  former  days.  Not  only  does  this  view  require 
us  to  ask  an  explanation  of  the  insertion  of  those 
meaningless,  antiquated  laws  alluded  to  above,  it 
also  necessitates  the  conclusion  that  the  book  is  a 
fraud,  a  forgery,  and  leaves  us  before  the  dilemma 
of  regarding  the  High  Priest  Hilkiah  either  as  a 
conniver  at  this  trick  upon  king  and  people,  or  else 
as  a  dupe.  That  he  was  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other  the  narrative  as  well  as  the  inherent  proba- 
bilities of  the  case  seem  to  make  almost  certain. 

In  regard  to  the  evidence  supposed  to  be  found 
in  the  contents  of  the  book  in  favor  of  its  late 
origiii,  it  can  hardly  be  called  altogether  convinc- 
ing. The  most  important  argument  is  unques- 
tionably based  on  the  many  allusions  which  Deu- 
teronomy contains  to  the  one  sanctuary  of  Yahwe. 
According  to  the  critics,  not  only  does  this  book 
presuppose  the  existence  of  the  temple  at  Jerusa- 
lem (though  it  generally  speaks  of  ''  the  place 
which  Yahw6  shall  choose  "),  but  there  is  no  proof, 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     331 

we  are  told,  that  there  was  any  thought  of  such 
concentration  of  worship  at  Jerusalem  in  the  times 
before  Josiah.  But,  instead  of  saying  with 
Kuenen*  that  ''  Deuteronomy  presupposes  Heze- 
kiah's  partial  reformation  (2  Kings,  xviii.  4),  for 
the  incomplete  and  partially  defeated  practice 
usually  precedes  the  theory,  and  not  vice  versa,'' 
we  regard  it  as  quite  as  scientific  and  much  more 
reasonable  to  maintain  with  Strackf  the  "  indubi- 
table right  to  find  in  Hezekiah's  attempt  a  recog- 
nition of  the  requirement  of  a  central  sanctuary, 
and  therewith  a  recognition  of  the  deuteronomic 
law."  Kuenen  refers  also  to  the  warninfi  in  Deut. 
xvii.  3  against  worshiping  ''  the  host  of  heaven/* 
as  evidence  of  its  origin  in  the  seventh  century, 
since  the  prophets  before  Jeremiah  and  Zephaniah 
never  allude  to  this  form  of  idolatry.  "  The 
author  of  Kings,"  he  says  (p.  218),  ''tells  us  that 
it  was  introduced  by  Manasseh  and  abolished  by 
Josiah  (2  Kings,  xxi,  3,  5  ;  xxiii.  4,  5).  This  ar- 
gument would  be  conclusive  as  to  the  date  of  the 
Deuteronomic  law,  were  it  not  that  this  same 
author  attributes  this  form  of  idolatry  to  the  ten 
tribes  also  (2  Kings  xvii.  16)."  Does  Kuenen  al- 
low this  evidence  of  the  worship,  at  least  in  the 
northern  kingdom  of  the  host  of  heaven  long  be- 
fore Josiah's  time,  to  affect  his  conclusion?  Not 
at  all.  *'  We  can  attach  no  value  to  this  state- 
ment "  is  his  remark,  the  reason  being  that  it  is 
*'  found  in  a  general  survey  of  a  long-vanished 

*Hexateuch,  p.  218. 

f  Herzog-Plitt,  Real-Encycl.,  Art.  "Pentateuch." 


332  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

past,  'which  is  characterized  by  anything  but  pre- 
cision, and  is  not  supported  by  the  evidence  of 
Amos  and  Hosea"(p.  218).  Whether  this  is  a 
satisfactory  method  of  deahng  with  an  historian 
or  not  may  be  safely  left  to  any  candid  person's 
judgment.  Kleinert*  calls  attention  to  the  fact 
that,  as  regards  worship  of  the  sun  and  moon, 
Baal  and  Astarte,  worshiped  by  the  Hebrews 
even  in  the  time  of  the-  Judges,  are  confessedly 
personifications  of  these  heavenly  bodies  in  the 
ancient  Syro-Canaanitish  cultus,  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  Deuteronomy  never  once  alludes  to 
the  worship  of  '^  the  queen  of  heaven,"  which  was, 
if  we  may  judge  from  Jeremiah's  polemic  (vii.  18  ; 
xliv.  17  ff.),  the  prevalent  form  of  idolatry  in  Jo- 
siah's  time. 

It  seems  to  us,  therefore,  that  the  date  assigned 
to  Deuteronomy  in  this  theory  is  not  yet  satis- 
factorily established,  although  even  that  might  be 
conceded  without  involving  the  conclusion  that, 
in  substance,  it  may  not  belong  to  a  much  earlier 
period  than  that  of  Josiah.  It  is  also  obvious 
that  conclusions  based  upon  this  date,  which  is 
yet  an  open  question,  cannot  be  held  as  well  es- 
tablished, but  must  be  regarded  as  involving  a 
very  large  element  of  uncertainty. 

In  regard  to  the  priestly  elements  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, commonly  designated  as  PC  or  P,  and  con- 
sisting, so  far  as  laws  are  concerned,  chiefly  of 
ritual  legislation,  the  claim  is  put  forward  that 
they  are  subsequent  to  Deuteronomy,  to  Ezekiel, 
*  Deuteron.,  p.  108. 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     33o 

and  even  to  the  exile.  We  find  serious  difficul- 
ties in  the  way  of  accepting  this  statement, 
although  the  evidence  to  substantiate  it  is  brought 
from  many  sides,  and  is  often  very  striking  and 
plausible. 

In  the  first  place,  Kuenen's  statement,"  that  "  a 
written  regulation  of  the  cultus  did  not  exist  in 
the  pre-Deuteronomic  times,"  is  so  inherently  im- 
probable that  we  may  be  pardoned  for  requesting 
some  clear  and  definite  proof.  That  the  Israelites 
should  have  had  a  priestly  order  from  the  earliest 
times,  as  the  history  of  the  Judges  clearly  shows 
they  did,  without  any  written  regulations  of  the 
cultus  until  the  sixth  or  seventh  century,  will 
hardly  strike  any  one  as  a  self-evident  truth. 
Their  sojourn  in  Egypt,  not  to  mention  anything 
else,  must  have  given  them  a  decided  impulse  in 
this  direction — an  impulse  which  a  people  so  open 
to  such  influences  as  the  Israelites  could  hardly 
have  escaped  following. 

The  statement  just  quoted  is  based,  in  the  first 
instance,  on  the  argument  from  silence.  "  The 
existence  of  P  before  the  Babylonish  captivity," 
says  Kuenen  (p.  273),  "  is  excluded  by  the  evi- 
dence of  the  Israelitish  literature."  Here  again, 
to  make  the  argument  valid,  it  would  have  to  be 
shown  that  this  document  could  not  exist  without 
being  known  and  referred  to ;  but  where  shall 
proof  of  this  be  found?  When  we  remember 
that  it  is  a  priestly  work,  according  to  the  critics, 
dealing,  so  far  as  its  laws  go,  almost  exclusively 
*  Hexateuch,  p.  273. 


334  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

with  ritual  matters,  the  possibiHty  that  such  a  code 
of  laws,  Avith  its  accompanying  historical  frame- 
work, might  exist  for  an  indefinite  period  without 
becoming  familiar  in  its  written  form  to  any  not 
immediately  interested,  is  at  once  manifest.  In 
the  nature  of  the  case,  the  prophets  would  con- 
cern themselves  but  little  with  such  matters,while 
their  denunciations  of  the  priests  as  utterly  cor- 
rupted and  given  to  idolatry  do  not  lead  one  to 
suppose  that  the  latter  could  themselves  have 
been  very  scrupulous  in  the  observance  of  their 
laws  (cf.  Is.  xxviii.  7  ff. ;  Mic.  iii.  1 1  ;  Zeph.  iii.  4 ; 
Jer.  xxiii.  1 1  ;  ii.  8  ;  v.  31,  etc.). 

But  even  though  the  Israelitish  literature  before 
the  captivity  betrays  no  familiarity  with  ritual 
laws  such  as  are  found  in  P,  may  it  be  said  that  it 
also  knows  nothing  of  their  existence  ?  Quite  the 
contrary.  Hosea  (viii.  12)  refers  to  an  extensive 
body  of  written  laws  as  well  known  in  his  time, 
and  the  context  would  incline  one  to  regard  this 
legislation  as  covering  matters  of  ritual  and  sacri- 
fice no  less  than  general  ethical  and  religious 
duties  to  which  Kuenen  rather  dogmatically  seems 
to  confine  it  (p.  272).  Nor  is  Hosea  alone  in  testi- 
fying to  the  existence  of  written  laws  touching 
ritual.  Passages  like  Jer.  xviii.  18  and  Zeph.  iii.  4 
most  decidedly  point  in  the  same  direction. 

We  further  confess  ourselves  unable  to  recon- 
cile Kuenen's  admission^^  that  ''  the  priestly  tora 
was  naturally  concerned,  in  the  first  instance,  with 
the  worship  of  Yahwe  (2  Kings  xvii.  27,  28),"  with 
*Hexateuch,p.  272. 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     835 

the  assertion  on  the  following  page  that  a  written 
regv\a.tion  0/ ^/i^  cii/^ us  did  not  exist  in  the  pre- 
Deuteronomic  times.  His  attempt  to  make  a 
distinction  between  laws  which  "  define  the  duties 
of  the  Israelite  toward  Yahwe  and  his  sanctuary" 
and  those  which  ''  regulate  the  worship  of  Yahwe," 
of  such  a  character  that  the  former  would  natu- 
rally be  committed  to  writing  and  the  latter  care- 
fully excluded  from  a  code,  seems  to  us  absolutely 
uncalled  for  and  unwarranted,  unless  it  be  by  the 
exigencies  of  a  theory.  He  contends  (pp.  176,  177) 
that  although  the  prophets  share  the  general  be- 
lief that  sacrifice  is  an  essential  element  of  true 
worship,  they  insist  upon  its  uselessness  when  not 
accompanied  by  the  observance  of  Yahwe's  moral 
demands,  and  do  this  in  a  way  which  would  have 
been  impossible  had  the  cultus  been  enjoined  by 
positive  commands  in  a  written  and  recognized 
code  of  laws.  But  on  the  one  hand  such  entire 
dependence  on  ceremonial  observances  is  itself 
almost  if  not  quite  unaccountable,  except  on  the 
supposition  that  these  observances  were  distinctly 
enjoined,  especially  when  it  is  borne  in  mind  that 
since  the  time  of  Samuel  there  had  lived  among 
the  people  prophetic  teachers  whose  influence, 
often  very  decided,  had  been  thrown  in  the  op- 
posite direction,  and  who  insisted  on  genuine 
obedience  to  Yahwe's  moral  law.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  seems  to  us  very  far  from  self-evident  that 
*'  the  polemic  of  the  prophets  against  the  religion 
of  their  contemporaries  would  necessarily  have 
differed  in  form  had  they  known  and  recognized  a 


3^3  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

ritual  legislation."  As  an  expression  of  opinion 
coming  from  an  able  critic  the  statement  deserves 
consideration,  but  it  is  at  best  only  an  impression 
made  upon  the  critic,  and  cannot  offset  the  posi- 
tive evidence  we  possess  of  a  pre-deuteronomic 
ritual  legislation.  For  the  very  book  upon  whose 
silence  so  much  stress  is  laid  by  the  supporters  of 
this  theory  affords  ample  proof  that  the  theory  is 
without  foundation,  at  least  as  regards  the  date  of 
the  ritual  legislation. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  at  the  outset  that 
Deuteronomy  is  a  law-book  designed  especially 
for  the  people,  and  therefore  it  need  not  surprise 
us  if  very  few  direct  allusions  to  ritual  affairs 
be  found  in  it.  Kuenen  admits,  however,  that  it 
''  can  hardly  have  been  committed  to  writing  with- 
out the  assistance  of  priests  of  Yahw^  "  (p.  272), 
and  says  also,  *' In  xiv.  3-21  he  [the  Deuterono- 
mist]  even  incorporates  a  priestly  tora  on  clean 
and  unclean  animals  into  his  b©ok  of  law  "  (p.  273). 
The  admission  is  a  most  important  one,  in  itself  as 
well  as  in  what  it  implies.  We  see  that  the  priests 
cannot  have  been  strangers  to  the  idea  of  a  written 
law  concerning  affairs  under  their  immediate  and 
exclusive  control.  They  must  have  been  guided 
not  simply  by  unwritten  traditions,  but  by  posi- 
tive statutes.  For  surely  no  one  imagines  that 
this  was  the  only  priestly  tora  committed  to  writing 
before  the  time  of  Deuteronomy.  Does  it  not 
rather  imply  the  existence  of  at  least  a  series  of 
laws,  not  only  on  the  distinction  of  clean  and  un- 
clean generally,  but  presumably  also  on  purifica- 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     337 

tions  of  various  kinds  and  other  related  matters — 
in  a  word,  just  such  a  series  as  is  found  in  Lev. 
xi.-xiv.  ?  One  is  practically  convinced  of  this  on 
comparing  Deut.  xiv.  3-21  with  Lev.  xi.  1-43;  for 
the  former  may  with  good  reason  be  called  a  mere 
repetition  of  the  latter,  though  with  omissions  and 
modifications.*  A  consideration  of  the  proba- 
bilities of  the  case  will  lead  one  to  this  conclusion 
as  much  simpler  and  more  natural  than  the  idea 
of  Kuenen  and  others  that  Leviticus  gives  merely 
an  expansion  of  the  briefer  deuteronomic  law ; 
the  shorter  of  two  statements  is  quite  as  likely  to 
be  an  abstract  or  summary  of  the  longer  as  to 
stand  in  the  opposite  relation  to  it. 

Again,  when  we  read  in  Deut.  xviii.  2,  *'  the 
Lord  is  their  inheritance,  as  he  hath  said  unto 
them,"  and  ask  what  statement  to  this  effect  con- 
cerning the  tribe  of  Levi  the  writer  had  in  mind, 
the  margin  refers  us  to  Num.  xviii.  20 ;  and  the 
conclusion  that  this  reference  is  correct,  that  here, 
as  elsewhere,  the  phrase,  "  as  he  said,"  is  mark  of 
a  quotation  from  some  written  source,  seems  to 
us  not  only  easy  but  almost  inevitable.  So  in  ch. 
xxiv.  8  the  Deuteronomist  is  very  plainly  referring 
to  a  law  touching  the  plague  of  leprosy — a  law 
which  we  find  written  in  Lev.  xiii.  and  xiv.  It 
has  been  well  said  by  Delitzsch  f  that  "  in  every 
instance  where  Deuteronomy  is  content  with  gen- 

*  Cf.  Dillmann,  Comm.  Exod.  u.  Lev.  p.  480  sq.  ;  Bissell, 
"The  Pentateuch,"  etc.,  p.  173  sq. 

f  Pent.  Krit.  Stud,  ix.,  quoted  by  Strack,  Herzog--Plitt, 
RE,  Ai't.  "Pent." 


b38  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

eral.  broadly-drawn  directions  which,  in  being 
appHed,  require  specification  or  completion,  we 
must  conclude  that  more  special  statutes  were 
already  in  existence,  which  it  has  in  mind  and  to 
which  it  points."  While  such  allusions  may  not 
be  numerous,  they  are  sufficient  to  show  that  there 
must  have  been  in  existence  before  the  deutero- 
nomic  law  a  ritual  legislation  of  no  small  extent. 

Equally  serious  objections  present  themselves 
tothetheorythat  Ezekiel  preceded  the  legislation 
of  P,  and  indeed  gave  the  first  impulse  toward  a 
written  regulation  of  the  cultus.  It  is  claimed 
that  Eiekiel  occupies  a  position  between  the 
earlier  legislation  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
and  Deuteronomy  on  the  one  hand,  and  that  of 
the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  on  the  other. 
This  can  be  said  only  by  taking  no  account  of  the 
important  points  in  which  his  regulations  break 
the  connection  between  the  two  legislations  rather 
than  make  it.  If  Ezekiel  cannot  have  been  ac- 
quainted with  P  for  the  reason  that  he  would  not 
in  that  case  have  ventured  to  depart  from  its  re- 
quirements, we  may  ask  in  turn  how  it  came  about 
that  those  who  followed  him  ventured  to  modify 
what  he  had  laid  down  as  God's  law,  made  known 
to  him  by  special  revelation.  As  regards  the 
priesthood,  Ezekiel  does  not  mention  the  high 
priest,  but  to  conclude  that  therefore  this  office 
originated  after  the  exile  would  imply  the  rejec- 
tion of  ample  testimony  in  the  historical  books  to 
the  existence  of  a  high  priest  from  the  time  of 
the  Judges  onward.     The  assertion  that  Ezekiel 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     339 

prepared  the  way  for  the  distinction  between 
priests  and  Levites  by  his  degradation  of  all  but 
the  sons  of  Zadok  from  exercising  priestly  func- 
tions, not  only  ignores  the  testimony  of  Deut. 
xviii.  3,  6,  where  this  distinction  is  implicitly  con- 
tained, not  only  fails  to  explain  the  reason  why 
the  priests  so  greatly  outnumbered  the  Levites 
among  the  exiles  returning  with  Zerubbabel,  but 
also  leaves  a  chasm  not  readily  bridged'  between 
Ezekiel's  limitation  of  the  priesthood  to  the  sons 
of  Zadok  and  the  supposed  later  expansion  of  his 
law  which  recognizes  all  the  sons  of  Aaron  as 
priests.  A  comparison  between  Ezekiel  and  P 
with  a  view  to  linguistic  peculiarities  points  quite 
as  strongly  in  the  direction  of  his  dependence  on 
the  latter  as  to  the  contrary.  Indeed  the  whole 
theory  that  Ezekiel  was  the  originator  of  ritual 
legislation  has  to  face  not  only  the  difficulty  of 
accounting  for  the  failure  of  any  attempt  even  to 
carry  out  his  laws,  but  also  the  even  greater  diffi- 
culty of  explaining  how  it  came  about  that  all  the 
later  laws  v/ere  attributed  not  to  Ezekiel  but  to 
Moses. 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  seems  to  us  that  the 
theory  of  the  post-exilic  origin  of  the  great  bulk 
of  the  Mosaic  legislation  involves  difficulties  of 
the  most  serious  kind.  That  much  greater  atten- 
tion was  paid  to  matters  of  ritual  after  the  captiv- 
ity than  before  is  unquestionably  true,  and  hence 
references  to  them  in  the  later  literature  are  natu- 
rally more  frequent ;  but  that  all  the  history  and 
especially  all  the  ritual   law  assigned  to  P  should 


340  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

have  originated  among  the  exiles  in  Babylonia, 
while  their  temple  and  city  lay  in  ruins,  is  not  even 
remotely  probable ;  and  that  this  work  should 
have  been  foisted  upon  the  people  by  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  as  Mosaic  is  simply  incredible. 

3.  The  Work  of  tJie  Redactor. — Having  pointed 
out  some  of  the  difficulties  which  beset  the  new 
hypothesis  in  its  analysis  of  documents  and  deter- 
mination of  their  respective  ages  and  relations,  it 
remains  for  us  to  notice  briefly  the  process  by 
which  the  several  documents  are  supposed  to  have 
been  welded  together.  As  Kuenen  is,  to  our 
knowledge,  the  only  critic  who  has  given  a  con- 
nected statement  of  this  process,  we  shall  base 
our  remarks  upon  what  he  has  to  offer.  Atten- 
tion has  already  been  called  to  the  extraordinary 
w^ay  in  which  the  redactor  to  whom  we  owe  the 
union  of  J  and  E  performed  his  work.  No  expla- 
nation, however,  has  been  offered  for  his  strange 
inconsistency,  although  it  is  obvious,  and  indeed 
conceded  by  the  critics,  that  the  result  offers  an 
exceedingly  difficult  literary  problem.  We  ven- 
ture the  assertion  that  it  is  not  likely  ever  to  be 
solved,  for  its  initial  difficulty  is  greatly  increased 
by  the  work  of  another  redactor,  who,  not  con- 
tent with  simply  inserting  Deuteronomy  in  the 
document  before  him,  modified  and  changed  J  E 
in  various  Avays,  so  that,  according  to  Kuenen,  his 
hand  may  be  clearly  traced.  At  the  same  time  this 
redactor  is  said  to  have  subjected  Deuteronomy  to 
a  similar  process  of  revision,  although  the  original 
D  had  already  suffered  serious  modifications  at  the 


The  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     341 

hands  of  former  editors  or  revisers.  Must  not  the 
attempt  to  analyze  a  document  that  has  really 
passed  through  so  many  changes  be  regarded  as 
simply  a  piece  of  guess-work,  in  which  a  precon- 
ceived theory  is  practically  the  sole  guide?  The 
wide  divergences  among  critics  as  to  the  process 
of  redaction  which  resulted  in  D  J  E  prove  that 
the  evidences  on  which  they  rely  are  largely  sub- 
jective. 

But  thus  far  the  work  of  compilation  is  only 
half  done.  During  the  exile,  which  saw  the  amal- 
gamation of  J  E  and  D,  another  work  was  begun 
among  the  priests  in  Babylon — a  work  of  exactly 
the  same  scope,  covering  the  same  ground,  from 
the  creation  to  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  and  like 
the  first,  in  combining  with  extended  narrative  a 
considerable  body  of  laws.  The  priestly  author 
builds  upon  J  E  throughout,  selecting  the  main 
facts  of  the  narratives  and  stripping  them  of  any- 
thing that  seems  unsuitable  from  his  own  point  of 
view.*  This  work,  enlarged  by  the  addition  of 
other  priestly  toroth,  older  and  younger  than  it- 
self, was  brought  to  Judea  by  Ezra  in  458  B.  C, 
where  the  deuteronomic-prophetic  sacred  history 
had  been,  for  nearly  a  century  at  least,  recognized 
and  revered  as  an  authority  in  all  matters  of  his- 
tory and  law.  But  the  new  work  departed  notably 
from  the  old.  ''  As  long  as  the  two  retained  their 
independence  they  challenged  mutual  comparison, 
and  the  great  difference  between  them  could  not 
but  be  observed.  If  this  difference  were  regarded 
*  Hexateuch,  p.  299. 


343  ^Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

as  amounting  to  contradiction,  then  the  prestige 
of  the  two  works  alike  must  suffer  under  it,  and 
the  authority  of  the  more  recently  introduced 
legislation  specially  must  be  shaken.  There  was 
but  one  means  of  averting  this  danger,  viz.,  to 
weld  together  these  independent  but  related  works 
into  a  single  whole,  which  might  then  claim,  with- 
out fear  of  challenge,  the  place  which  Judaism  as- 
signed to  the  documents  of  Yahwe's  revelation  to 
the  fathers.  It  is  therefore  highly  probable  that 
the  Sopherim  lost  no  time,  and  that  before  the 
end  of  the  fifth  century  they  had  produced  the 
Hexateuch."* 

But  is  it  at  all  probable  that  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
could  have  been  successful  in  the  attempt  to  im- 
pose upon  the  people  a  new  code  of  laws  contain- 
ing so  much,  according  to  this  theory,  that  had 
never  been  heard  of  before,  when  D  J  E  was  in 
full  force  among  them  as  God's  law  given  to  them 
by  the  hand  of  Moses?  And  how  would  the 
mingling  of  the  two  documents,  so  different  in 
spirit  and  contents,  help  to  blind  any  one's  eyes 
to  this  difference  or  give  any  support  to  the  claim 
of  the  new  work  to  equal  authority  with  the  old? 
As  to  the  nature  of  this  redaction,  we  are  toldf 
that  it  '*  assumes  the  form  of  a  continuous  dias- 
keue  or  diorthosis,  and  the  redactor  becomes  a 
collective  body  headed  by  the  scribe,  who  united 
the  two  works  spoken  of  above  into  a  single  whole, 
but  also  including  the  whole  series  of  his  more  or 

*  Hexateuch,  p.  315. 

t  lb.  p.  314;  cf.  pp.  270,  303,  313. 


TuE  Difficulties  of  the  New  Hypothesis.     343 

less  independent  followers.  It  is  only  in  excep- 
tional cases,  however,  that  the  original  redactor 
can  be  distinguished  with  certainty."  The  ab- 
stract possibility  of  such  a  scheme  cannot  be 
denied  ;  but  w^hat  evidence  is  there  of  its  truth  ? 
The  resort  to  a  series  of  redactors  strikes  one  as 
an  obvious  but  hardly  plausible  solution  of  ac- 
knowledged difficulties.  What  one  redactor  could 
not  do  and  maintain  his  consistency  must  be  the 
work  of  a  different  redactor. 

As  we  follow  Kuenen  in  his  detailed  account  of 
the  redaction  (pp.  323  sqq.),  and  see  how  he  makes 
R  rearrange,  alter,  omit,  and  make  additions  to 
the  materials  before  him  ;  as  we  notice  the  devices 
to  which  R  must  resort  in  order  to  bring  harmony 
out  of  discord,  while  yet  leaving  the  divergences 
and  contradictions  so  manifest  that  the  critics  can 
readily  follow  his  steps  ;  as  our  eyes  are  dazzled  by 
the  kaleidoscopic  effects  he  produces  through 
jumbling  together  verses,  clauses,  and  even  single 
words  from  his  different  sources,  freely  mingled 
with  comments  of  his  own,  the  conviction  forces 
itself  upon  us  that  the  whole  scheme  is  altogther 
too  artificial  to  be  within  the  bounds  of  proba- 
bility, not  to  say  possibility.  A  statement  of 
Kuenen's  theory  of  the  redaction — the  best  and 
most  complete  yet  offered  by  upholders  of  the 
new  hypothesis — seems  to  us  its  own  sufficient 
refutation. 

We  do  not  oppose  the  attempt  to  analyze 
the  Pentateuch  ;  we  acknowledge  the  distinctions 
drawn    between  the   several    codes  of   laws ;   we 


344  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

recognize  clear  traces  of  a  composite  character 
here  and  there  in  the  history,  we  admit  the  possi- 
bihty  of  late  additions,  some  of  which  may  even 
date  from  post-exilic  times.  But  a  theory  which 
not  only  deals  with  all  these  elements  in  the  un- 
satisfactory way  here  indicated,  but  in  addition 
would  make  the  Pentateuch  largely  a  tissue  of 
fictions  and  perversions  of  history,  deny  the  cred- 
ibility or  trustworthiness  of  every  statement  in 
the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  which  does  not 
fall  in  with  it,  and  call  Chronicles  a  string  of  in- 
ventions not  worthy  a  serious  examination — a 
theory  which  for  the  sake  of  consistency  must 
deny  not  only  all  law  and  history  to  Moses,  but 
also  all  psalms  to  David  and  all  proverbs  to  Solo- 
mon— such  a  theory  seems  to  us  not  only  to  offer 
no  satisfactory  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, but  to  make  many  more  difificulties  than 
it  removes. 


THE  VALIDITY  AND  BEARING  OF  THE 

TESTIMONY  OF  CHRIST  AND 

HIS   APOSTLES. 

BY   REV.   C.    R.    HEMPHILL,   COLUMBIA,   S.   C. 

The  topic  assigned  me  in  this  collection  of 
essays  on  the  Pentateuchal  question  is  the  valid- 
ity and  bearing  of  the  testimony  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles  on  the  origin  and  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch.  To  those  who  regard  with  reverence 
and  receive  with  humility  the  teachings  of  Jesus 
and  those  who  were  inspired  with  his  Spirit,  testi- 
mony of  this  character  will  be  of  surpassing  value 
in  the  controversies  that  traverse  the  broad  field 
of  Old  Testament  history,  documents  and  institu- 
tions. Critical  processes  have  their  rightful  place, 
and  critical  results  are  not  to  be  despised,  but  I 
take  it  that  the  Lord  Jesus  and  his  apostles  are 
of  higher  authority  and  sounder  judgment  than 
even  the  most  acute  and  learned  critics.  It  is 
matter  of  common  knowledge  that  the  majority 
of  recognized  experts  in  Biblical  criticism  reject 
the  belief,  traditional  among  Jews  and  Christians 
alike,  that  the  Pentateuch  is  the  production  of 
Moses.  Equally  familiar  to  all  is  it  that  this 
traditional  belief  is  generally  supposed  to  have 
been  the  belief  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  his 
inspired  disciples.  In  this  state  of  case  it  becomes 
us,  while  vindicating  the  supremacy  of  Christ  and 
the  apostles,  to  be  cautious  in  our  induction  and 


34()  Pentateuch AL  Criticism, 

careful  in  our  interpretation  lest  a  false  issue  be 
raised,  and  antagonism  be  created  where  none 
rightly  exists.  The  history  of  theological  con- 
troversy is  often  painful  reading,  because  of  the 
many  instances  in  which  a  traditional  accident  of 
the  truth  has  been  mistaken  for  an  integral  ele- 
ment of  the  truth  itself.  Failing  to  distinguish 
things  that  differ,  good  men  have  sometimes 
ventured  the  Scriptures  and  Christianity  upon  a 
human  tradition  that  comes  in  time  to  be  proved 
no  part  of  the  divine  teaching.  In  the  variety,  ex- 
tent, and  importance  of  the  questions  that  emerge 
in  the  comparatively  modern  science  of  Biblical 
criticism  there  is  danger  that  conservative  scholars 
may  repeat  blunders  of  this  kind,  where,  if  any- 
where, a  blunder  is  worse  than  a  crime.  Admon- 
ished by^such  mistakes,  it  shall  be  my  endeavor 
to  free  myself  from  bias  or  prejudice  and  be  will- 
ing to  follow  whithersoever  the  truth  may  lead. 

Clearly,  this  study  is  purely  exegetical  in  char- 
acter, and  must  be  prosecuted  under  the  acknowl- 
edged canons  of  interpretation.  And  as  the  essay 
is  intended  for  popular  reading,  I  shall  not  be 
blamed  for  adopting  a  simple  method,  and  for  re- 
lying on  principles  of  reasoning  that  are  none  the 
less  scientific  for  being  familiar  and  easy  of  appli- 
cation. 

I  assume,  of  course,  that  the  New  Testament 
sets  down  the  real  opinions  and  records  accurately 
the  teaching  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles.  I 
assume,  further,  that  the  Pentateuch  as  we  now 
have  it  existed  in  the  same  form  in  the  times  of 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.    347 

the  New  Testament,  an  assumption,  I  may  add, 
the  truth  of  which  is  admitted  by  all  parties  to 
the  controversy  respecting  its  origin. 

The  inquiry  I  have  set  out  to  make  is  best  pur- 
sued along  two  distinct  and  yet  related  lines  of 
investigation.  In  the  one  shall  be  traced  the 
testimony  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  in  its  bearing 
on  the  historic  character  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
by  implication  on  its  origin.  In  the  other  their 
language  is  to  be  submitted  to  critical  analysis 
and  interpretation  wherever  they  have  seemed  to 
speak  more  or  less  definitely  on  the  specific  sub- 
ject of  the  origin  and  authorship  of  the  book. 

I.  The  books  of  Moses,  though  marked  by  a 
certain  unity,  are  constituted  of  distinct  elements. 
History,  legislation,  poetry  and  prophecy  combine 
to  form  this  fundamental  constitution  of  the  life 
and  religion  of  the  Jews.  Its  narratives  stretch 
back  to  the  beginnings  of  our  world  and  of  our 
race,  and  cover  hundreds  of  years.  Through  all 
this  history  runs  the  supernatural,  and  many  of 
the  narratives  abound  in  miraculous  stories.  The 
poetry,  the  prophecy  and  the  laws  are  inseparably 
associated  by  the  book  with  the  historical  situa- 
tion and  incidents  it  describes,  and,  in  conse- 
quence, the  veracity  of  the  history  and  the  divine 
origin  of  the  prophecy  and  the  laws  are  dependent 
on  each  other. 

What,  then,  have  the  apostles  to  say  in  regard 
to  the  claims  of  these  narratives  to  be  veritable 
history? 

Peter  and  Paul  may  speak  for  the  whole  college. 


348  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

In  his  epistles  Peter  makes  quotation  of  several 
incidents: 

1.  The  story  of  Noah  and  the  flood:  "In  the 
days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  a  preparing, 
wherein  few,  that  is,  eight  souls  were  saved  by 
water."     i  Pet.  iii.  20  ;  cf.  2  Pet.  ii.  5. 

2.  The  story  of  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrha  :  ''  And  turning  the  cities  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrha  into  ashes  condemned  them  with  an 
overthrow  .  .  . ;  And  delivered  just  Lot." 
2  Pet.  ii.  6,  7. 

3.  The  story  of  Abraham  and  Sarah,    i  Pet.  iii.  6. 

4.  The  story  of  Balaam.     2  Pet.  ii.  15,  16. 
Paul  is  fond  of  using  the  facts  of  the  Pentateuch 

history,  not  only  in  illustration,  but  often  in  proof 
of  his  doctrines.  His  writings  abound  in  citations 
from  these  old  narratives : 

1.  The  story  of  the  creation  of  man  and  woman  : 
"For  Adam  was  first  formed,  then  Eve.  And 
Adam  was  not  deceived,  but  the  woman  being 
deceived  was  in  the  transgression."  i  Tim.  ii. 
13,  14.  "  For  the  man  is  not  of  the  woman  ;  but 
the  woman  of  the  man.  Neither  was  the  man 
created  for  the  woman ;  but  the  woman  for  the 
man."     i  Cor.  xi.  8,  9. 

2.  The  history  of  the  Patriarchs,  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob  : 

"  What  shall  we  say  then  that  Abraham  our 
father,  as  pertaining  to  the  flesh,  hath  found  ?  For 
if  Abraham  were  justified  by  works,  he  hath  where- 
of to  glory ;  but  not  before  God.  For  what  saith 
the    Scripture  ?     Abraham   believed   God,  and    it 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.    349 

was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness.  .  .  . 
And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision."  Ro- 
mans iv.  1-3,  II.  See  also,  in  Romans  ix. 
7-13  and  Galatians  iv.  22-31,  references  to 
Abraham,  Sarah,  Hagar,  Isaac,  Rebecca,  Jacob 
and  Esau,  the  facts  being  cited  as  recorded  in 
Genesis. 

3.  The  story  of  the  Exodus  :  ^'  Moreover,  breth- 
ren, I  would  not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant,  how 
that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and 
all  passed  through  the  sea;  and  were  all  bap- 
tized unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea; 
and  did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat ;  and  did 
all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink ;  for  they 
drank  of  that  spiritual  Rock  that  followed  them  ; 
and  that  Rock  w^as  Christ.  But  with  many  of 
them  God  was  not  well  pleased  ;  for  they  were 
overthrown  in  the  wilderness.  Now  these  things 
were  our  examples,  to  the  intent  we  should  not 
lust  after  evil  things,  even  as  they  also  lusted. 
Neither  be  ye  idolaters,  as  were  some  of  them  : 
as  it  is  written,  The  people  sat  down  to  eat  and 
drink,  and  rose  up  to  play.  Neither  let  us  commit 
fornication,  as  some  of  them  committed,  and  fell 
in  one  day  three  and  twenty  thousand.  Neither 
let  us  tempt  Christ,  as  some  of  them  also  tempted, 
and  were  destroyed  of  serpents.  Neither  murmur 
ye,  as  some  of  them  also  murmured,  and  were 
destroyed  of  the  destroyer."  i  Cor.  x.  i-io;  cf. 
Acts  xiii.  17,  18. 

See  also  reference  to  writing  of  the  ten  com- 
mandments   on    stone,    Moses'  descent    from  the 


350  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Mount  with  shining  face,  and  his  veiHng  his  face. 
2  Cor.  iii.  7-13. 

Assuming  that  Paul  was  the  writer  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we  have  before  us  a 
treatise  whose  very  basis  of  argument  is  the  his- 
toric character  and  veracity  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Specific  reference  is  made  to  Abraham,  Melchise- 
dec,  Moses,  Aaron,  the  Exodus,  the  forty  years 
wandering,  the  construction  of  the  tabernacle 
by  Moses,  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  many  of 
the  special  laws  relating  to  the  priesthood  and 
ritual.  The  eleventh  chapter  cites  as  history  the 
narratives  that  tell  of  Abel  and  his  sacrifice ; 
Enoch  and  his  translation ;  Abraham  and  his  call, 
and  God's  covenant  with  him  ;  Sarah  and  the  birth 
of  Isaac;  the  offering  of  Isaac;  Isaac's  blessing 
Jacob  and  Esau  ;  Jacob  blessing  his  sons;  Joseph 
giving  commandment  concerning  his  bones;  the 
birth  of  Moses,  his  exposure,  rescue  and  adop- 
tion by  Pharaoh's  daughter ;  his  casting  in  his  lot 
with  his  people  ;  his  leading  them  out  of  Egypt ; 
his  institution  of  the  passover ;  the  passage  of  the 
Red  Sea,  and  the  destruction  of  the  Egyptians. 
To  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  these 
marvellous  narratives  are  true  records  of  events 
that  actually  occurred. 

The  Lord  Jesus  was  familiar  with  the  history  of 
Israel  and  their  religion,  and  uses  it  for  his  pur- 
pose as  occasion  required.     He  refers: 

I.  To  the  story  of  creation. 

"  Have  ye  not  read,  that  he  which  made  them 
at  the  beginning  made  them  male  and  female,  and 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.    351 

said,  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  father  and 
mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife:  and  they 
twain  shall  be  one  flesh?"     Matt.  xix.  4,  5. 

2.  To  the  story  of  Noah  and  the  flood.  *'  But 
as  the  days  of  Noe  were,  so  shall  also  the  coming 
of  the  Son  of  man  be.  For  as  in  the  days  that 
were  before  the  flood  they  were  eating  and  drink- 
ing, marrying  and  giving  in  marriage,  until  the  day 
that  Noe  entered  into  the  ark,  And  knew  not  until 
the  flood  came,  and  took  them  all  away;  so  shall 
also  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  be."  Matt. 
xxiv.  37-39, 

3.  Tothestory  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrha.  '*  Like- 
wise also  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Lot ;  they  did 
eat,  they  drank,  they  bought,  they  sold,  they 
planted,  they  builded  ;  but  the  same  day  that  Lot 
went  out  of  Sodom  it  rained  fire  and  brimstone 
from  heaven,  and  destroyed  them  all.  .  .  . 
Remember  Lot's  wife."     Luke  xvii.  28,  29,  32, 

4.  To  the  story  of  the  calling  of  Moses.  "  Have 
ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  how  in  the  bush 
God  spake  unto  him,  saying,  I  am  the  God  of 
Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob?"  Mark  xii.  26.  See  also  references  to 
the  brazen  serpent,  John  iii.  14;  to  the  manna, 
John  vi.  32  ;  to  several  laws  attributed  by  Christ 
to  Moses,  e.g.,  law  for  purification  of  a  leper.  Matt, 
viii.  4;  honoring  father  and  mother,  Mark  vii.  10; 
circumcision,  John  vii.  22,  23  ;  law  of  divorce. 
Matt.  xix.  8. 

Striking  and  impressive  as  these  citations  are, 
even  when   taken   out  of   their   context,  the   full 


353  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

force  they  legitimately  carry  can  only  be  received 
when  they  have  the  advantage  of  the  original  cir- 
cumstances in  which  they  were  written  or  spoken. 
Turn,  for  example,  to  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  the 
Acts,  and  observe  that  Paul,  addressing  an  audience 
of  Jews  in  the  synagogue  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia, 
who  firmly  believed  that  the  history  of  the  Penta- 
teuch was  true  in  all  its  parts,  places  the  facts  of 
the  Exodus  and  the  wilderness  wandering  in  the 
same  category  with  those  historic  facts  that  lie  at 
the  very  basis  of  Christianity — the  birth,  life,  death 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus.  It  is  clear  to  a  demon- 
stration that  our  Lord  and  the  apostles  relied 
upon  the  historic  veracity  of  the  Pentateuch  nar- 
ratives, and  affirmed  that  the  events  and  incidents 
that  they  embody,  whether  ordinary  or  extra- 
ordinary, took  place  at  the  time  and  in  the  manner 
described. 

But  what  bearing,  my  readers  are  ready  to  ask, 
has  the  historical  character  of  the  Pentateuch  on 
its  origin  and  authorship?  Are  not  these  separate 
and  altogether  independent  questions  ?  I  am  well 
aware  that  it  is  often  asserted  that  these  questions 
do  not  involve  each  other.  Let  us  inquire  how 
far  this  is  true. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  if  the  Pentateuch  be 
historical  in  any  adequate  sense  of  the  term,  its 
own  explicit  or  implicit  claims  as  to  origin  and 
authorship  must  be  accepted.  A  book  whose  dis- 
tinct claims  as  to  its  own  authorship  and  date 
have  been  overturned  may  still  contain  some  his- 
torical facts,  but  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  vera- 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.    353 

cious  history  in  the  sense  in  which  our  Lord  and 
the  apostles  certify  the  full  and  accurate  his- 
torical character  of  the  Pentateuch.  Does,  then, 
the  book  itself  make  any  affirmation  as  to  its  origin 
and  authorship  ?  That  it  does  seems  clear  from 
three  considerations : 

1.  There  is  the  positive  statement  in  two  docu- 
ments that  they  were  written  by  Moses.  These 
are  the  list  of  the  journeys  of  the  children  of 
Israel  in  the  thirty-third  chapter  of  the  Book  of 
Numbers,  and  the  book  of  the  covenant,  which 
includes  at  least  Exodus  xx.  22-xxiii.  In  two 
other  passages,  Exod.  xviii.  14  and  xxxiv.  27, 
God  commands  Moses  to  write. 

2.  The  reading  of  the  middle  books,  Exodus, 
Leviticus  and  Numbers,  shows  that  the  writer 
claims  to  record  numerous  incidents  in  the  history 
of  Israel.  The  laws  are  set  in  this  framework  of 
history,  and  in  many  instances  associated  with 
minute  description  of  the  place  and  time.  The 
name  and  work  of  Moses,  what  he  said  and  did, 
make  up  much  of  the  narrative.  Moreover,  in  al- 
most every  chapter  we  meet  with  statements  like 
these  :  "  The  Lord  said  unto  Moses,"  **  The  Lord 
spake  unto  Moses,"  "  Thus  did  Moses  ;  according 
to  all  that  the  Lord  had  commanded  him  so  did 
he."  If  these  and  like  phrases  represent  what 
really  occurred,  if  the  whole  setting  of  these  laws, 
and  the  progress  of  events  be  as  described  in  these 
books,  then  it  is  beyond  question  that  all  but  the 
merest  fraction  of  the  contents  of  the  middle  books 
must  have  originated  with  Moses.     If  it  be  true 


354  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

that  he  was  the  originator  of  those  laws  which 
profess  to  have  been  given  by  him,  and  which,  by 
the  way,  the  critic?  are  most  confident  are  of  later 
date,  few  will  care  to  discuss  the  quite  secondary 
question  of  authorship.  The  most  natural  sup- 
position, however,  is  that  they  were  written  by 
Moses. 

3.  The  book  of  Deuteronomy  makes  undeniable 
claims  to  Mosaic  origin  and  authorship.  *'  It 
would  surprise  one  unacquainted  with  the  subject 
to  know  how  large  a  portion  of  the  book  is  put 
directly  into  the  mouth  of  the  lawgiver,  and  is 
represented  to  be  spoken  by  him.  By  actual 
enumeration  of  verses  it  makes  fifteen-sixteenths 
of  the  whole  matter.  Out  of  nearly  a  thousand 
verses  there  are  but  about  sixty  that  are  not  in 
the  form  of  direct  address,  that  is,  that  do  not 
purport  to  be  the  word-for-word  utterances  of 
Moses  himself."  Human  language  cannot  be  in- 
vented in  which  the  writer  of  a  book  could  afifirm 
anything  with  more  positiveness  than  does  the 
writer  of  Deuteronomy  that  its  matter  originated 
with  Moses  at  a  certain  time  and  under  given  cir- 
cumstances. It  is  a  mere  war  of  words  to  discuss 
whether  Moses  was  the  author  of  this  book  if  it 
be  admitted  that  he  was  the  originator  of  its  con- 
tents. If  the  book  be  historical ;  if,  in  other  phrase, 
it  speak  the  truth,  no  ingenuity  can  avoid  the 
conclusion  that  it  claims  to  be  Mosaic  in  origin, 
and,  therefore,  to  all  intents  and  purposes.  Mosaic 
in  authorship. 

But  this  is   not  all,  for  the  book  itself  contains 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.    3f.5 

the  direct  assertion  of  its  authorship  by  Moses: 
''  And  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and  delivered  it  unto 
the  priests."  Deut.  xxxi.  9.  *' And  it  came  to 
pass,  when  Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing 
the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book,  until  they  were 
finished,  that  Moses  commanded  the  Levites, 
which  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord, 
saying.  Take  this  book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  in 
[at]  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the 
Lord  your  God  that  it  ma}^  be  there  for  a  witness 
against  thee."     Deut.  xxxi.  24-26. 

These  passages  must  relate  to  the  book  of  Deu- 
teronomy at  least,  and  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  they  include  the  whole  of  the  five  books. 
At  any  rate  there  is  here  the  positive  assertion 
that  Moses  produced  the  contents  of  this  book, 
and  wrote  them  down,  and  then  deposited  the 
book  as  God  had  commanded  him.  These  are 
either  statements  of  fact,  or  they  are  not.  If  not, 
then  we  have  the  Lord  Jesus  and  the  apostles 
subscribing  to  the  historical  character  of  a  book 
that  relates  in  the  most  circumstantial  manner 
events  that  never  took  place,  and  that  lays  claim 
to  a  date  and  an  origin  that  are  altogether  false. 
If,  however,  these  statements  be  true,  it  fixes  the 
authorship  of  this  the  closing  book  of  the  whole. 
Taking  this  in  connection  with  the  claims  of  the 
middle  books  we  have  the  definite  affirmation  of 
these  four  books  that  they  are  from  Moses.  If 
this  be  granted,  I  suppose  there  will  be  no  dis- 
position to  deny  that  Genesis  has  the  same  origin. 

There  is  another  aspect  of  the  relation  of  the 


356  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

historical  character  of  the  Pentateuch  to  its  origin 
and  authorship  to  which  I  would  invite  special 
attention.  It  is  that  most  of  the  arguments 
against  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  assert 
or  imply  that  the  historical  narratives  are  more  or 
less  fictitious.  How  few  critics  there  are  who 
deny  Mosaic  authorship  and  maintain,  in  any  true 
sense,  the  veracity  of  the  history.  This,  I  believe, 
is  no  accident,  but  a  logical  necessity.  And  if  we 
look  into  the  arguments  of  these  critics  it  will 
appear  that  they  have  little  force  except  on  the 
assumption  that  these  narratives  are  not  to  be  re- 
ceived as  history.  And  the  class  of  facts  that  are 
set  aside  as  unhistorical  are  principally  those  that 
involve  the  supernatural  factor.  I  ask  the  reader 
to  recall  that  it  is  precisely  this  class  of  facts  that 
are  most  frequently  cited  as  historical  by  our 
Lord  and  his  apostles.  Every  argument,  there- 
fore, against  the  Mosaic  origin  and  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  that  derives  its  force  from  the 
denial  of  the  veracity  of  the  book  as  a  whole  or 
in  any  of  its  parts  must  be  discredited  by  him  who 
submits  himself  to  the  teaching  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
and  the  apostles.  And  so  true  is  it  that  this  hos- 
tile criticism  is  bound  up  with  the  unhistorical 
character  of  the  Pentateuch  that  I  am  persuaded 
that  the  critic  who  believes  that  it  is  historical  in 
the  sense  and  to  the  extent  accepted  by  our 
Saviour  and  the  apostles  will  have  little  argu- 
ment and  less  motive  for  denying  its  origin  and 
authorship  to  Moses. 

I  have  now  completed  the  first  line  of  investi- 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.    357 

gation  along  which  I  proposed  to  move,  and  have 
reached  the  conclusion :  {a)  that  the  historical 
character  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Mosaic  origin 
and  authorship  are  involved  in  each  other;  {b) 
that  Jesus  and  the  apostles  certify  the  historical 
character  of  the  book;  and  {c)  that,  therefore, 
they  certify  its  Mosaic  origin  and  authorship. 
The  fact,  moreover,  is  signalized,  that  the  hostile 
criticism  commonly  rejects  or  ignores  the  full 
and  true  historic  veracity  of  the  Pentateuch,  and 
thereby  comes  into  fatal  collision  with  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles. 

II.  The  second  line  of  investigation  is  con- 
cerned with  the  more  direct  assertions  and  im- 
plications of  the  language  of  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles. 

We  shall  find  them  frequently  referring  to 
Moses,  and  speaking  of  the  law,  the  law  of  Moses, 
the  book  of  Moses,  and  his  writings. 

Some,  at  least,  of  these  expressions  are  in  them- 
selves indeterminate  so  far  as  mere  etymological 
analysis  goes.  How  are  you  to  know  what  is  meant 
by  ''  the  law  of  Moses  "  and  what  constitute  "  his 
writings".'*  These  terms  clearly  had  some  defi- 
nite meaning  among  the  contemporaries  of  Christ, 
and  it  is  this  meaning  we  must  suppose  to  have 
been  in  the  minds  of  Christ  and  the  apostles.  It 
is  a  first  principle  of  all  interpretation  that  a 
writer  or  speaker  is  to  be  understood  to  use 
words  and  phrases  in  the  sense  in  which  they  are 
used  by  their  contemporaries,  unless  there  be  in 
the  context  or  in  positive  statement  another  and 


353  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

a  different  meaning  indicated.  It  becomes,  there- 
fore, of  prime  importance  to  know  in  what  sense 
and  with  what  implications  these  words  and 
phrases  were  used  in  New  Testament  times. 

I  shall  proceed  to  show  that  the  contemporaries 
of  Christ  and  the  apostles  understood  by  them  : 

{a)  That  Moses  was  the  name  of  an  historic 
person  whose  history  and  achievements  were  fa- 
miliar to  them,  and  not  simply  a  convenient  des- 
ignation of  a  system  of  legislation. 

{b)  That  Moses  was  a  great  lawgiver. 

{c)  That  Moses  was  an  author,  and  that  Moses 
the  author  was  identical  with  Moses  the  lawgiver. 

{d)  That  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, which  went  by  the  name  of  *'  the  law," 
''the  law  of  Moses,"  ''the  book  of  Moses," 
"  Moses'  writings." 

The  evidence  to  make  good  these  propositions 
is  ample  and  accessible,  while  not  a  piece  of  testi- 
mony can  be  produced  to  the  contrary.  The 
pages  of  Josephus,  the  historian  of  the  Jews, 
yield  abundant  testimony  for  our  purpose.  Born 
in  Jerusalem  about  38  A.D.,  of  priestly  descent, 
carefully  educated,  an  adherent  of  the  Pharisees, 
but  acquainted  with  the  tenets  of  all  the  Jewish 
sects,  a  patriot  and  officer  in  the  Jewish  army, 
and  closing  his  career  in  literary  labors  at  Rome,  we 
have  in  Josephus  a  thoroughly  competent  witness 
and  a  trustworthy  exponent  of  the  current  views 
of  the  Palestinian  Jews.  The  passage  in  his  po- 
lemic against  Apion  is  familiar  to  my  readers :  "  For 
we  have  not  an  innumerable   multitude   of  books 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.    359 

among  us,  disagreeing  from  and  contradicting  one 
another,  but  only  twenty-two  books,  which  con- 
tain the  records  of  all  the  past  times,  which  are 
justly  believed  to  be  divine  ;  and  of  them  five  be- 
long to  Moses,  w^hich  contain  his  laws  and  the 
traditions  of  the  origin  of  mankind  till  his  death." 
C'  Against  Apion,"  Bk.  I.  §8). 

In  the  last  section  of  his  preface  to  the  "Anti- 
quities of  the  Jews  "  he  refers  to  the  position  of 
Moses  in  relation  to  Jewish  history  :  ''But  because 
almost  all  our  constitution  depends  on  the  wisdom 
of  Moses,  our  legislator,  I  cannot  avoid  saying  some- 
what concerning  him  beforehand.  .  .  .  The 
reader  is  therefore  to  know  that  Moses  deemed  it 
exceeding  necessary  that  he  who  w^ould  conduct  his 
own  life  w^ell,  and  give  laws  to  others,  in  the  first 
place  should  consider  the  divine  nature."  In 
tracing  the  history  from  the  creation  onward  Jo- 
sephus  repeatedly  quotes  what  Moses  says  and 
does,  following  the  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  giving  the  details  of  the  birth  of  Moses,  his 
exposure  and  rescue,  his  training  and  education 
as  the  son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter,  his  call  to  deliver 
Israel,  and  the  miraculous  events  that  accompa- 
nied the  Exodus.  The  full  force  of  the  impression 
can  only  be  felt  by  the  reading  of  Josephus  him- 
self, but  I  will  cite  an  additional  passage,  which, 
with  those  already  given,  seems  sufficient  to  es- 
tablish the  propositions  I  set  out  to  prove  by  this 
witness:  "  The  writings  left  by  Moses  have  so 
great  a  force  that  even  those  who  hate  us  do  con- 
fess that  he  who  established  this   settlement  was 


360  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

God,  and  that  it  was  by  the  means  of  Moses  and 
his  virtue  "  {''  Antiq.,"  Bk.  III.,  ehap.  xv.,  §2). 

From  the  representative  of  the  Palestinian  tra- 
dition I  turn  to  one  who  may  justly  be  regarded 
as  the  representative  of  the  tradition  and  belief 
of  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion.  This  is  the  volumi- 
nous author  and  philosopher,  Philo.  Born  in 
Alexandria  about  20  B.C.,  of  an  influential  and 
wealthy  family,  and  probably  of  priestly  descent, 
Philo  used  his  many  advantages  of  position  and 
leisure  to  acquaint  himself  with  Jewish  theology 
and  Greek  culture,  and  aspired  to  be  the  mediator 
between  them.  It  is  well  known  that  in  many 
respects  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  had  modified 
the  views  of  the  Palestinian  Jews.  It  becomes 
interesting  to  inquire  whether,  in  this  important 
question  of  the  relation  of  Moses  to  their  history 
and  religion,  they  had  departed  from  the  doctrine 
of  Palestine.  To  show  from  the  works  of  Philo 
that  there  was  no  departure  in  this  regard,  and  to 
justify  the  afiflrmations  I  have  made  respecting 
contemporary  opinions  of  Moses  and  the  Penta- 
teuch, is  an  easy  matter. 

For  example,  in  his  **Life  of  Moses,"  section 
viii.,  p.  83,  Vol.  III.: 

"  Now  what  has  been  here  said  is  quite  suflRcient 
for  the  abundant  praise  of  Moses  as  a  lawgiver. 
But  there  is  another  more  extensive  praise  which  his 
own  holy  writings  themselves  contain,  and  it  is  to 
them  that  we  must  now  turn  for  the  purpose  of 
exhibiting  the  virtue  of  him  who  compiled  them." 

*'  Now,  these  writings  of  Moses  may  be  divided 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.      361 

into  several  parts ;  one  of  which  is  the  historical 
part,  another  is  occupied  with  commands  and 
prohibitions.     .     .     ." 

In  closing  the  life  of  Moses,  and  after  attributing 
to  him  the  prophetic  description  of  his  death  and 
the  mourning  that  followed,  he  closes  with  these 
words  :  "  Such  was  the  life  and  such  was  the  death 
of  the  king  and  lawgiver,  and  high  priest  and  pro- 
phet, Moses,  as  it  is  recorded  in  the  sacred  Script- 
ures." 

Philo  begins  his  treatise  on  '^  Rewards  and  Pun- 
ishments "  with  these  words :  **  We  find,  then,  that 
in  the  sacred  oracles  delivered  by  the  prophet 
Moses,  there  are  three  separate  characters :  for  a 
portion  of  them  relates  to  the  creation  of  the 
world,  a  portion  is  historical,  and  the  third  por- 
tion is  legislative.  Now  the  creation  of  the  world 
is  related  throughout  with  exceeding  beauty,  and 
in  a  manner  admirably  suited  to  the  dignity  of 
God,  taking  its  beginning  in  the  account  of  the 
creation  of  the  heaven,  and  ending  with  that  of 
the  formation  of  man.     .     .     . 

''  The  historical  part  is  a  record  of  the  lives  of 
different  wicked  and  virtuous  men,  and  of  the  re- 
wards and  honors  and  punishments  set  apart  for 
each  class  in  each  generation. 

*'  The  legislative  part  is  subdivided  into  two 
sections,  one  of  which  has  a  more  general  object 
proposed  to  it,  laying  down  accordingly  a  few 
general,  comprehensive  laws  :  the  other  part  con 
sists  of  special  and  particular  ordinances.""^ 

*  Works,  Vol,  III.,  pp.  45G,  457.     Bohn's  translation. 


362  Pextateuchal  Criticism. 

Within  the  New  Testament  we  have  expres- 
sions of  beHef  from  otliers  than  our  Lord  and 
His  apostles,  and  the  inspired  writers,  which  con- 
stitute a  factor  of  value  in  deciding  what  were  the 
current  views  on  the  subject  under  discussion. 
The  sacred  writings  were  well  known,  as  was  the 
division  into  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  the 
Law,  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms.  It  is  evident, 
and  is  universally  admitted,  that  in  this  two-fold 
or  three-fold  division  the  law  was  the  designa- 
tion of  our  Pentateuch.  As  respects  the  relation 
of  Moses  to  this  law  or  Pentateuch,  all  the  allu- 
sions and  references  we  find  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment go  to  establish  what  has  been  supported  by 
Philo  and  Josephus.  Philip,  for  example,  be- 
fore called  as  an  apostle,  "  findeth  Nathanael,  and 
saith  unto  him,  We  have  found  him  of  whom 
Moses  in  the  law,  and  the  prophets,  did  write." 
John  i.  45.  When  the  Pharisees  were  endeavor- 
ing to  entrap  Christ  on  the  points  in  dispute  con- 
cerning the  law  of  divorce,  "  They  say  unto  him, 
Why  did  Moses  then  command  to  give  a  writing 
of  divorcement,  and  to  put  her  away  ?  "  Matt.  xix. 
7.      Compare  John  viii.  5,  ix.  28,29;  Acts  xv.  5. 

The  Sadducees  used  language  of  like  import 
when  they  came  to  him  and  put  their  question 
about  the  resurrection,  saying,  ^'  Master,  Moses 
said,  If  a  man  die,  having  no  children,  his  brother 
shall  marry  his  wife,  and  raise  up  seed  to  his 
brother."     Matt.  xxii.  24. 

To  get  at  a  glance  the  general  view  of  the  Jews 
as  a  people  read  this  extract  from  Luke's  account 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.     363 

of  the  attack  on  Stephen  :  "  Then  they  suborned 
men,  which  said,  We  have  heard  him  speak  blas- 
phemous words  against  Moses,  and  against  God. 
And  they  stirred  up  the  people  and  the  elders  and 
the  scribes,  and  came  upon  him,  and  caught  him^ 
and  brought  him  to  the  council.  And  set  up  false 
witnesses,  which  said,  This  man  ceaseth  not  to 
speak  blasphemous  words  against  this  holy  place 
and  the  law;  for  we  have  heard  him  say,  that 
this  Jesus  of  Nazareth  shall  destroy  this  place, 
and  shall  change  the  customs  which  Moses  de- 
livered us."  Acts  vi.  11-14.  Compare  Stephen's 
speech  which  follows,  and  John  i.  17,  Acts  xv.  i, 
xxi.  21-28. 

It  is  needless  to  weary  the  reader  with  further 
citations. 

It  is  enough  to  say  that  Rabbinic  and  early 
Christian  tradition,  and  the  scant  allusions  in  Latin 
and  Greek  writers  support  the  propositions  I  have 
affirmed.  If  there  were  need,  the  best  and  most 
recent  authorities  could  be  cited  to  sustain  this 
view,  while  none  can  be  produced  for  the  assump- 
tion that  such  was  not  the  current  belief  of  the 
time  of  Christ. 

To  quote  only  one  writer,  when  I  might  quote 
many.  Rev.  Dr.  Toy,  in  his  introduction  to  his 
"  Quotations  in  the  New  Testament,"  p.  xxix. 
says:  ''As  to  the  critical  opinions  of  the  New 
Testament  writers,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  they  were  those  of  the  Jews  of  the  time 
(nearly  what  is  now  known  as  the  Christian  tradi- 
tional view).     According  to  the  Talmud  the  Pen- 


364  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

tateuch  was  written  by  Moses  (except  the  eight 
last  verses,  which  were  added  by  Joshua).  .  .  . 
This,  in  general,  was  doubtless  the  received  opin- 
ion in  the  first  century,  and  must  have  been  held 
by  the  New  Testament  writers.  Nobody  then 
doubted  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch."  The 
last  trace  of  doubt  should  fade  away  in  the  light 
of  the  reflection  that  the  cunning  and  relentless 
opponents  of  Christ  never  raised  this  question 
with  Him.  Jesus  had  enemies,  able,  acute,  alert 
and  unscrupulous,  who  would  have  seized  on  any 
opportunity  to  bring  him  into  collision  with  any 
prevailing  and  popular  national  or  religious  idea. 
We  see  them  setting  traps  for  him  by  their  ques- 
tions, and  endeavoring  to  compel  him  to  commit 
himself  to  some  one  of  the  religious  and  political 
parties  of  the  day.  We  know  that  on  the  vexed 
question  of  the  lawfulness  of  paying  tribute  to 
Caesar  they  made  the  effort  to  range  him  on  one 
side  or  the  other,  and  thereby  bring  him  into 
antagonism  with  Rome  or  with  the  feelings  of  the 
populace.  The  Sadducees  set  their  trap  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  The  Pharisees  pro- 
pounded points  of  dispute  between  different 
schools  of  their  own  party  on  the  law  of  divorce 
and  the  order  of  the  commandments.  And  we 
know  that  the  purposes  of  these  enemies  were  at 
last  achieved  by  exciting  the  populace  against 
Jesus.  It  is  as  plain  as  can  be  that  if  any  differ- 
ence of  opinion  had  existed  respecting  Moses  and 
his  relation  to  the  history  and  religion  of  the 
Jews,  and  the  origin  and  authorship  of  the  Penta- 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.     365 

teuch,  these  ingenious  enemies  would  not  have 
forgotten  to  frame  a  question  on  the  subject  for 
Christ  to  answer.  But  they  ask  no  question  of 
the  kind,  and  while  they  charge  him  with  hostil- 
ity to  Moses,  they  never  so  much  as  hint  at  what 
would  have  been  the  most  damaging  accusation 
of  all,  and  never  even  insinuate  the  charge  on 
which  they  could  have  inflamed  against  Him  the 
deepest  national  and  religious  sentiments  of  the 
people. 

I  have  been  at  pains  to  establish  that  such  were 
the  universally  accepted  beliefs,  for  the  reason 
that  they  constitute  the  criterion  by  which  to 
measure  the  contents  of  the  language  of  our 
Lord  and  the  apostles.  We  are  obliged  by  every 
principle  of  interpretation  to  maintain  that  they, 
aware  of  these  opinions  and  beliefs  in  their  hear- 
ers and  readers,  used  the  same  language  in  the 
same  sense,  and  with  the  same  general  implica- 
tions, unless  they  intimate  the  contrary, 

The  apostle  Paul  will  fitly  represent  all  the 
apostles,  and  this  is  the  way  in  which  he  speaks : 

*'  For  Moses  writeth  that  the  man  that  doeth 
the  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law  shall  live 
thereby,"  (R.  V.)  Rom.  x  :  5.  "  First  Moses  saith, 
I  will  provoke  you  to  jealousy  by  them  that  are 
no  people."     Rom.  x.  19. 

"  For  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  Thou 
shalt  not  muzzle  the  mouth  of  the  ox  that  tread- 
eth  out  the  corn."     i  Cor.  ix.  9. 

''  For  when  Moses  had  spoken  every  precept  to 
all  the  people  according  to  the  law,  he  took  the 


366  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

blood  of  calves  and  of  goats,  with  water,  and  scar- 
let wool,  and  hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both  the 
book  and  all  the  people."  Heb.  ix.  19.  "  He  that 
despised  Moses'  law  died  without  mercy  under 
two  or  three  witnesses."  Heb.  x.  28  ;  cf.  Heb. 
vii.  14  and  2  Cor.  iii.  15. 

When  Paul  speaks  of  Moses  saying,  Moses 
writing,  Moses  speaking,  the  law  of  Moses,  the 
book,  who  can  avoid  the  conclusion  that  Paul 
held  with  everybody  of  his  time  that  Moses  was 
the  author  of  the  Pentateuch? 

There  is  no  lack  of  citations  from  the  Gospels 
that  put  before  us  our  Lord's  method  of  handling 
this  subject : 

"They  have  Moses  and  the  prophets;  let  them 
hear  them.  If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded,  though 
one  rose  from  the  dead."     Luke  xvi.  29,  31. 

"  These  are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto  you, 
while  I  was  yet  with  you,  that  all  things  must  be 
fulfilled  which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
and  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms,  concern- 
ing me."     Luke  xxiv  :  44. 

*'  The  scribes  and  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat." 
Matt,  xxiii.  2. 

"  Offer  the  gift  that  Moses  commanded." 
Matt.  viii.  4. 

*'  Moses  said,  "  Honor  thy  father  and  thy 
mother."     Mark  vii.  10. 

"  For  this  cause  hath  Moses  given  you  circum- 
cision (not  that  it  is  of  Moses,  but  of  the  fathers). 
.     .     .     If  a   man   receives   circumcision    on    the 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.      367 

Sabbath,  that  the  law  of  Moses  may  not  be 
broken."     John  vii.  22,  23. 

'*  And  the  Pharisees  came  to  him  and  asked 
him,  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife? 
tempting  him.  And  he  answered  and  said  unto 
them,  What  did  Moses  command  you  ?  And 
they  said,  Moses  suffered  to  write  a  bill  of 
divorcement,  and  to  put  her  away.  And  Jesus 
answered  and  said  unto  them.  For  the  hardness 
of  your  heart  he  wrote  you  this  precept."  Mark 
X.  2-5. 

*'  And  there  come  unto  him  Sadduces,  which 
say  that  there  is  no  resurrection  ;  and  they  asked 
him,  saying.  Master,  Moses  wrote  unto  us.  .  .  ." 
*'  But  as  touching  the  dead,"  replies  Jesus,  '^  that 
they  are  raised  :  have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of 
Moses,  in  the  place  concerning  the  bush,  how 
God  spake  unto  him,  saying,  I  am  the  God  of 
Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob"?  (R.  V.)  Mark  xii.  19,  26;  cf.  Matt, 
xxii.  23-32  ;  Luke  xx.  27-38. 

Special  pleading  may  evade  the  natural  and 
legitimate  conclusions  from  these  words,  but 
special  pleading  is  not  interpretation.  When  our 
Lord  speaks  of  Moses,  Moses  saying,  Moses  com- 
manding, Moses  giving,  Moses  writing,  Moses' 
seat,  the  law,  the  law  of  Moses,  the  book  of 
Moses,  we  must  suppose  that  he  was  not  simply 
employing  conventional  modes  of  expression,  but 
that  he  used  these  words  and  phrases  in  the  sense 
in  which  he  well  knew  they  were  received  by  his 
audience. 


368  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

I  invite  special  attention  to  a  passage  of  signal 
importance  preserved  for  us  by  the  Apostle  John 
in  his  Memorials  of  the  Saviour.  A  vigorous  con- 
troversy between  Jesus  and  the  Jews  had  grown 
out  of  his  healing  a  man  on  the  Sabbath  day  at 
the  pool  of  Bethesda.  Both  parties  relied  on  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  particularly  on  Moses  and 
his  teachings.  Jesus  challenges  them  to  search 
their  Scriptures,  and  asserting  for  himself  a  pecu- 
liar relation  to  Moses  and  his  venerable  writings, 
summons  the  great  law-giver  as  the  chief  witness 
in  his  behalf,  and  lodges  against  his  opponents  the 
charge  of  disbelieving  the  writings  of  the  one  on 
whom  they  had  set  their  hope  and  whose  cham- 
pions they  assumed  to  be.  Before  the  mind  of 
Jesus  was  the  fundamental  question  of  the  rela- 
tion of  Moses  and  the  religion  he  inculcated  to 
the  prevalent  religious  doctrines  and  practices  of 
the  Jews,  as  well  as  to  Himself  and  the  religious 
position  and  claims  he  was  maintaining. 

We  hav.e  a  right  to  believe  that  our  Lord  on 
such  an  occasion  measures  his  words,  and  that  his 
argument  moves  not  on  the  plane  of  merely  con- 
victing his  adversaries  of  an  inconsistency,  but  is, 
in  all  its  compass,  a  deliverance  of  the  truth  as  it 
was  imbedded  in  his  consciousness.  From  this 
point  of  view,  then,  let  us  construe  these  words 
of  our  Lord  :  *'  Think  not  that  I  will  accuse  you 
to  the  Father:  there  is  one  that  accuseth  you, 
even  Moses,  on  whom  ye  have  set  your  hope. 
For  if  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  believe  me  ; 
for    he  wrote  of  me.     But   if  ye  believe  not  his 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.    369 

writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my  words?"  John 
V.  45-47. 

Beyond  a  doubt  Jesus  here  affirms  that  Moses 
was  a  historical  person,  not  merely  a  name  for  a 
book  or  a  system,  and  that  this  Moses  wrote  of 
him.* 

It  is  equally  clear  that  what  Moses  had  written 
of  Jesus  was  asserted  by  him  to  be  accessible  to 
his  hearers  in  certain  writings  of  Moses.  The 
only  point  of  difficulty  with  them  or  with  us  in 
understanding  Jesus  would  lie  in  ascertaining 
what  these  writings  of  Moses  are.  The  phrase, 
*' his  writings,"  is  in  itself  indefinite,  and  there  is 
nothing  in  the  context  to  determine  what  are  the 
writings  of  Moses.  No  one  can  for  a  moment 
suppose  that  our  Lord  would  lay  so  grave  an  in- 
dictment and  leave  his  adversaries  in  ignorance  of 
its  basis.  We  must,  therefore,  conclude  that  he 
and  his  auditors  had  a  definite  sense  attached  to 
the  indefinite  phrase.  This  sense  has  already 
been  shown  to  be  the  Pentateuch.  The  ^'  writ- 
ings of  Moses  "  were  identical  with  the  collection 
that  still  carries  that  title,  and  when  the  Saviour 
startled  his  opponents  with  the  charge  of  disbe- 
lieving the  writings  of  Moses  there  was  not  a 
man  that  heard  him  whose  mind  was  in  the  least 
doubt  what  writings  were  in  question.  But  a  few 
moments  before  he  had  bidden  them  search  the 
Scriptures,  literally,  "the  writings."  They  well 
knew  that   he   referred   not   to  any   or   all   *'  the 

*  The  reader  of  the  Greek  will  observe  that  "he"  and  "his  "are 
BO  expressod  as  to  emphasize  the  personality  of  Moses,  and  that 
**  writings"  is  also  contrasted  with  "  words." 


S70  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

writings"  to  be  found  among  themselves  or  other 
peoples,  but  to  a  specific  collection  which,  from 
their  peculiar  character,  passed  current  under  the 
name  of  "  the  writings."  They  were  accordingly 
by  his  own  usage  compelled  to  interpret  him  here 
as  adopting  the  current  limitations  of  a  similar 
indefinite  phrase,  and  to  suppose  Him  to  refer  to 
what  all  the  Jews  called  the  writings  of  Moses, 
namely,  the  Pentateuch. 

Support  is  found  for  this  in  an  exposition  of 
our  Lord's  meaning  when  he  affirms  that  Moses 
wrote  of  him. 

A  brief,  comprehensive,  and  sober  interpreta- 
tion of  the  passage  is  given  by  Dr.  Schaff  in  his 
edition  of  the  Lange  Commentary: 

"  Moses  wrote  of  Christ,  as  the  seed  of  the 
woman  that  shall  bruise  the  serpent's  head  (Gen. 
iii.),  as  the  seed  of  Abraham  by  which  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  (Gen.  xii.  ff.), 
as  the  Shiloh  unto  whom  shall  be  the  gathering 
of  the  people  (Gen.  xlix.),  as  the  Star  out  of 
Jacob,  and  the  scepter  that  shall  rise  out  of  Israel 
(Numb.  xxiv.  17),  as  the  great  Prophet  whom 
God  will  raise  up,  and  unto  whom  the  Jews 
should  hearken  (Deut.  xviii.).  Moreover,  the 
moral  law  of  Moses,  by  revealing  the  holy  will 
of  God  and  setting  up  a  standard  of  human  right- 
eousness in  conformity  with  that  will,  awakens  a 
knowledge  of  sin  and  guilt  (Rom.  iii.  20  ;  vii.  7), 
and  thus  serves  as  a  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  to 
Christ  (Gal.  iii.  24).  Finally,  the  ritual  law  and 
all  the  ceremonies  of  Mosaic  worship  were  typical 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  ob^  Christ.    oTl 

of  the  Christian  dispensation  (Col.  ii.  17),  as  the 
heahng  serpent  in  the  wilderness  pointed  to  Christ 
on  the  cross  (Numb.  xxi.  9;  John  iii.  14).  This 
is  a  most  important  testimony,  from  the  unerring 
mouth  of  Christ,  to  the  Messianic  character  and 
aim  of  the  whole  Mosaic  dispensation,  and  to  the 
Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch." 

If  this  exposition  be  just,  our  Lord  must  have 
had  in  mind  the  body  of  writings  known  as  the 
writings  of  Moses. 

Should  a  doubt  remain,  it  should  be  removed 
by  the  reflection  that  unless  by  "his  writings" 
our  Lord  intended  to  name  the  Pentateuch  there 
was  to  those  who  heard  him  no  method  of  deter- 
mining his  meaning.  If  we  give  up  the  doctrine 
that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  we  are  abso- 
lutely unable  to  discover  what  are  the  writings  of 
Moses  to  which  Jesus  appealed.  It  is  a  notorious 
fact  that  while  there  is  more  or  less  agreement  on 
the  part  of  the  critics  in  their  general  analysis  of 
the  Pentateuch,  there  is  no  approach  to  unanimity 
in  the  proportion  ascribed  to  the  date  and  author- 
ship of  Moses.  This  proportion  ranges  from  zero 
through  varying  degrees,  according  to  the  fancy 
or  preconceived  notions  or  criteria  of  the  critic. 
Denying,  then,  that  our  Lord  referred  the  Jews 
to  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  wJiole  Pentateuch, 
when  he  spoke  of  their  disbelief  of  the  writings 
of  Moses,  we  are  compelled  to  say  that  he  based 
a  most  solemn  indictment  against  their  most 
sacred  beliefs  and  their  religious  life  upon  their 
great  leader's  writings,  ot  which,  like  his  sep- 
ulchre, "  no  man  knoweth  unto  this  day." 


372  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  writings  of  Moses 
were  intended  by  Jesus  to  mean  the  Pentateuch. 
Substituting  this  term  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration it  reads  in  this  way:  Think  not  that 
I  will  accuse  you  to  the  Father  :  there  is  one  that 
accuseth  you,  even  Moses,  on  whom  you  have  set 
your  hope.  If  ye  believed  Moses  ye  would  be- 
lieve me  ;  for  he  wrote  of  me.  But  if  ye  believe 
not  his  writings,  the  Pentateuch,  how  will  ye  be- 
lieve my  words  ?  " 

The  only  other  interpretation  that  seems  pos- 
sible is  to  suppose  that  our  Saviour  has  in  mind 
certain  special  utterances  of  Moses  to  be  found 
in  the  Pentateuch  ;  such,  for  example,  as  the  Mes- 
sianic predictions  to  be  found  in  Genesis  and  else- 
where, and  particularly  the  prediction  of  the  great 
prophet  in  Deuteronomy.  His  meaning,  then, 
would  be  :  Moses  wrote  these  predictions  con- 
cerning me  :  these  constitute  his  writings.  Inas- 
much as  ye  do  not  receive  me  as  the  Messiah  in 
regard  to  whom  Moses  wrote  these  passages,  ye 
disbelieve  his  writings,  and  therefore  disbelieve 
Moses.     On  this  it  may  be  remarked  : 

1.  How  were  the  Jews  to  know  that  he  was  re- 
ferring to  these  passages  ? 

2.  These  Messianic  predictions  are  found  in 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch  most  generally  denied  to 
Moses.  If  the  methods  of  the  critics  have  led 
them  to  deny  in  these  instances  what  Christ 
ascribes  to  Moses,  we  may  well  be  cautious  in 
accepting  their  results  elsewhere. 

3.  These  passages  are  part  and  parcel  of  a  body 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.    37.T 

of  writings  universally  attributed  at  the  time  to 
Moses.  If  Christ  affirms  these  passages  as  Mo- 
saic, he  must  be  held,  by  all  the  principles  of 
literary  criticism,  to  affirm  the  whole  book  from 
which  they  are  taken  as  of  the  same  authorship, 
unless  he  bar  the  inference  by  a  distinct  state- 
ment or  otherwise.  To  deny  this  principle  is  to 
deny  one  of  the  most  common  and  conclusive 
modes  of  tracing  writings  and  books  to  their 
authors.  Even  on  this  interpretation,  then,  our 
Lord  must  have  affirmed  the  Mosaic  authorship, 
not  of  one  or  more  passages  simply,  but  of  the 
whole  Pentateuch. 

I  have  now  completed  the  second  line  of  inves- 
tigation that  was  proposed  at  the  outset,  and 
have  reached  the  conclusion  that  a  fair  and  legiti- 
mate interpretation  of  the  language  used  by  our 
Lord  and  the  Apostles  commits  them  to  holding 
and  teaching  the  current  view  of  their  time  on 
the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

This  conclusion  is  further  supported  by  three 
considerations : 

I.  By  its  consistency  with  the  general  posture 
of  our  Lord  and  the  Apostles  toward  the  Old 
Testament  religion  and  its  sacred  documents. 
Jesus  furnishes  us  a  summary  statement  in  his 
own  words :  '*  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  de- 
stroy the  law,  or  the  prophets :  I  am  not  come  to 
destroy,  but  to  fulfil."     Matt.  v.  17. 

The  Apostles  are  justly  represented  in  Paul, 
when,  in  his  defense  before  Agrippa,  he  vehe- 
mently denies  the  charge  that  he  was  an  opponent 


374  Pentateuch AL  Criticism. 

of  the  Jewish  rehgion,  and  states  his  position  in 
this  form :  '^  Having  therefore  obtained  help  of 
God,  I  continue  unto  this  day,  witnessing  both  to 
small  and  great,  saying  none  other  things  than 
those  which  the  prophets  and  Moses  did  say 
should  come."     Acts  xxvi.  22. 

Beyond  a  doubt,  in  the  estimation  of  Jesus  and 
his  Apostles  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  supernatural  in  its  origin,  and  its  documents 
were  inspired  and  authoritative.  Equally  beyond 
controversy  is  the  assertion  that  to  their  minds 
the  Old  Testament  was  incomplete,  and  the  New 
Testament  its  complement :  the  Old  a  prophecy — 
not  simply  in  specific  predictions,  but  in  its  his- 
tory and  institutions — and  the  New  its  fulfilment: 
the  Old  Testament  creating  longings  and  expec- 
tations of  a  Messiah  and  a  Messianic  kingdom, 
and  the  New  placing  over  against  these  the  per- 
son and  works  of  Jesus  and  the  kingdom  he 
preached.  The  bond,  therefore,  between  the  Old 
and  the  New  is  not  one  of  mere  historic  succes- 
sion, but  is  organic.  It  needs  no  proof  to  justify 
the  statement  that  if  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  at- 
tributed the  Mosaic  writings  to  the  age  and 
authorship  of  Moses,  they  would  be  in  harmony 
with  their  attitude  toward  the  religion  and  his- 
tory of  Israel.  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  any 
other  view  of  the  relation  of  Moses  to  Israel  and 
these  writings  can  be  adjusted  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

2.  This  conclusion  is  strengthened  by  the  fact 
that    all    parties   within    and    without    the    early 


The  Validity  of  the  Testimony  of  Christ.     375 

church  understood  Christ  and  the  Apostles  to 
hold  the  common  view  of  their  day  on  the  matter 
now  before  us.  The  struggle  between  Judaism 
and  Christianity  was  long  and  bitter,  and  was 
carried  on  within  the  bosom  of  the  church  itself 
with  such  earnestness  as  to  endanger  the  very 
life  and  prosperity  of  the  church.  Moses  was  the 
rallying-cry  of  the  Jewish  opponents  of  Christian- 
ity and  of  the  Judaizing  Christians.  Yet  not  a 
whisper  is  heard,  even  against  Paul,  the  most 
''advanced  thinker"  of  them  all,  that  he,  or  his 
Lord,  or  any  of  the  preachers  of  the  Gospel, 
questioned  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  writings 
whose  meaning  was  most  in  dispute.  It  is  clear, 
therefore,  that  our  interpretation  has  the  sanc- 
tion of  all  the  contemporaries  of  Christ  and  his 
acknowledged  representatives. 

3.  This  conclusion  finds  support  in  the  difficul- 
ties that  emerge  on  giving  up  this  interpretation. 
One  of  these  difficulties  is  that  we  shall  then  be 
at  a  loss  to  discover  what  was  the  opinion  or 
teaching  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  regarding 
Moses  and  his  place  in  the  history  and  religion  of 
the  Jews.  If  we  explain  away,  by  a  minimizing 
exegesis,  or  by  the  supposition  of  ignorance  or 
accommodation  on  their  part,  the  utterances  they 
make  respecting  Moses,  the  law  of  Moses,  the 
writings  of  Moses,  and  similar  expressions,  then 
by  the  same  methods  and  principles  we  may  ex- 
plain away  all  the  contents  of  their  language,  and 
can  deny  that  they  make  any  affirmations  what- 
ever in  regard  to  what  is  by  common  consent  the 


376  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

great  problem  of  Israel's  religion.  It  appears  to 
the  present  writer  that  unless  Christ  and  the 
Apostles  affirm  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch 
in  the  passages  quoted  from  them,  they  affirm 
little  or  nothing  upon  the  historic  character  and 
achievements  of  the  man  who,  by  the  confession 
of  all,  is  the  central  and  dominant  figure  in  Israel's 
history,  and  the  accredited  source  of  her  religious 
doctrines  and  worship.  To  make  such  a  conclu- 
sion as  this  consist  Avith  any  just  insight  into  the 
religion  of  Israel  on  the  part  of  Jesus,  not  to 
speak  of  his  honesty  as  a  teacher  or  his  Divinity, 
would  be  no  easy  task.  These  considerations 
conspire  to  create  confidence  in  the  legitimacy  of 
the  process  by  which  the  passages  under  review 
have  been  interpreted,  and  confirm  the  writer  in 
the  conviction  that  Christ  and  his  Apostles  have 
delivered  a  definite  and  to  him  decisive  judgment 
on  the  burning  question  of  Biblical  criticism. 
This  judgment,  reached  by  two  distinct  lines  of 
study,  is  in  favor  of  the  traditional  view  in  its 
substantial  claims.  Without  attempting  to  sum 
up  the  argument,  the  writer  submits  to  the  can- 
dor of  his  readers  this  humble  contribution  on  a 
most  vital  theme. 


SUMMARY. 


1.  Chaldea,  Egypt,   Syria,  before  1300  B.C.,  according 

to  the  agreements  of  their  scientific  historians. 

2.  The  naturalness  and  accuracy  in  the  Pentateuch's 

narrative  of  beliefs,  customs  and  geography,  seal 
its  date  contemporaneous  with  the  events  de- 
scribed, and  limit  its  authorship  to  one  master 
hand. 

Howard  Osgood. 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       379 


A  REASONABLE    HYPOTHESIS  OF  THE 
ORIGIN  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 

BY  HOWARD  OSGOOD,   PROFESSOR  IN  ROCHESTER  THEOL.   SEMINARY. 

A  reasonable  hypothesis  of  the  origin  of  the 
Pentateuch  must  be  one  which  most  closely  agrees 
with  all  the  known  facts.  Any  hypothesis  that 
contradicts  or  does  not  agree  with  plain  facts  in 
its  sphere  is  untenable.  If  the  results  of  mere 
philology  in  one  department  are  contradicted  by 
the  undeniable  facts  of  history,  the  philology  needs 
revision. 

I  shall  treat  only  the  secular  side  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch question,  on  the  broadest  plane  of  history. 
So  far  as  this  paper  is  concerned  the  Pentateuch 
is  an  ancient  Hebrew  work,  and  an  answer  is 
sought  to  the  queries.  When  was  this  work  written  ? 
Was  it  the  composition  of  one  or  of  many  hands? 

Professor  Maspero  some  years  ago  wrote,  ''In 
less  than  30  years  a  new  world  of  unknown  lan- 
guages and  peoples  has  been  opened  for  study  ; 
thirty  centuries  of  history  have  come  forth  from 
the  tombs  and  reappeared  in  the  full  light  of 
day."^  The  literature,  w^hich  these  studies  and 
discoveries  have  evoked,  represents  more  scholars 
than  those  who  write  on  the  Pentateuch  contro- 
versy. They  are  the  peers  in  every  respect  of  the 
German  or  Dutch  or  English  leaders  of  the  school 
of  criticism,  which  denies  that  the  Pentateuch  is 
history.     These    historians    of    Chaldea,    Egypt, 


380  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Syria,  have  the  advantage  over  the  critics  of  a 
single  theme,  that  they  base  their  results  not  on 
one  book  but  on  hundreds  of  monuments  of  stone, 
clay,  inscribed  statues,  engraved  seals,  bas-reliefs 
inscribed  and  that  describe  themselves,  paintings 
that  illustrate  the  text  and  are  further  explained 
by  the  text,  papyri  of  different  ages,  containing 
the  same  text  with  the  variations  of  copyists. 
These  historians  breathe  a  larger,  freer  air  than 
most  critics,  for  they  are  compelled  to  take  into 
account  comparative  ethnology,  geography,  and 
religion  ;  to  become  familiar  with  the  language, 
art,  government,  national  and  social  life  and  com- 
merce of  the  peoples  whose  history  they  study. 
And  when  we  gather,  as  we  shall  in  this  paper, 
the  proved  results  of  these  scientific  investigators, 
we  breathe  a  larger  air  than  is  to  be  found  in  the 
apologetical  works  of  those  critics  who  have  a 
narrow  theory  to  defend. 

The  opponents  of  the  Pentateuch  as  history 
claim  a  keener  sight  than  other  persons  concern- 
ing questions  of  3,000  years  ago ;  but  they  fail  to 
see,  or  if  they  see,  they  fail  to  consider  that  "  3,000 
years  ago  "  when  brought  into  plain  sight  before 
them  and  all  men  now.  Except  a  few  notices  in 
Kuenen's  "  Religion  of  Israel,"  and  Wellhausen's 
characteristic  "  God-forsaken  dreariness  of  certain 
modern  Egyptologists,"  one  searches  in  vain  in 
their  writings  for  any  real  appreciation  of  the  utter 
revolution  that  has  taken  place  in  ancient  history 
by  reason  of  the  startling  resurrection  of  long 
buried    nations.     These    opponents    postulate    as 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       381 

''the  universal,  or  at  least  the  common  rule,  that 
religion  begins  with  fetichism,  then  develops  into 
polytheism,"  etc.  ;  but  that  theory  is  now  simple 
tradition,  eaten  of  worms,  and  is  as  dead  as  Herod. 
They  rest  their  theory  on  the  assumption  that 
polytheism  preceded  monotheism  :  a  pure  tradi- 
tional assumption  and  nothing  more,  when  fully 
one  half  of  the  scientific  archaeologists  believe 
they  can  prove  the  contrary. 

The  last  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch  describe 
in  a  Semitic  language  the  fortunes  of  a  Semitic 
people  in  Egypt  or  near  Egypt,  during  40  years 
somewhere  from  1 500-1 300  B.C.  The  first  book 
of  the  Pentateuch  professes  to  give  a  short  sketch 
of  the  history  of  the  world,  and  then  a  longer  his- 
tory of  the  immediate  ancestors  of  these  Semites 
in  Chaldea,  in  Syria  and  in  Egypt. 

Those  who  assert  that  the  Pentateuch  was  a 
compilation  made  many  centuries  after  1300  B.C. 
make  the  following  assumptions:  i.  That  Egypt 
and  Syria  were  at  a  relatively  low  stage  of  civiliz- 
ation, as  to  literature,  art,  commerce,  knowledge 
of  surrounding  countries  before  and  at  the  time  of 
the  Exodus,  /.  c,  before  1300  B.  C.  2.  That  Syria 
was  aloof  from  the  great  tides  of  the  world's  life, 
literature  and  commerce.  3.  That  '*  ethical  mo- 
notheism" was  "the  creation"  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets  during  and  after  the  eighth  century  B.C. 
Let  us  look  at  these  lands  that  we  may  under- 
stand their  relations.  Let  any  one  take  a  good 
map  of  Western  Asia  (Kiepert)  and  he  will  see 
that  the  rich  lands  of  the  Mesopotamian   empires 


383  Pentateuchal   Criticism. 

extended  from  the  western  boundary  of  the  pres- 
ent Persia  to  the  Euphrates.  Between  the  Eu- 
phrates and  Syria  extends  the  great  desert,  its 
apex  nearly  on  a  line  with  the  northern  (Asia 
Minor)  coast  of  the  Mediterranean.  The  eastern 
coast  of  the  Mediterranean,  about  450  miles  from 
North  to  South,  is  Syria  (including  Palestine),  a 
narrow  strip  of  about  100  miles  wide,  between  the 
sea  and  the  desert.  The  northeastern  point  of 
Syria  joins  the  main  crossing  point  of  the  Euph- 
rates to  the  Mesopotamian  lands,  while  its  south- 
western point  touches  the  eastern  boundary  of 
Egypt.  By  the  conformation  of  the  earth  Syria  is 
the  unavoidable  route  of  migration  and  com- 
merce between  Chaldea  and  Egypt.  The  remains 
of  numerous  ancient  cities,  a  dense  population, 
and  the  witness  of  all  history  have  marked  this 
course  as  the  line  of  travel.  Some  have  supposed  a 
line  of  commerce  from  Chaldea  to  Egypt  through 
the  Arabian  peninsula  ;  but  while  practicable  for 
a  few  men  and  animals  together  during  a  small 
part  of  the  year,  that  course  is  no  shorter  than  the 
northern,  and  it  is  far  more  difficult,  owing  to  the 
terrible,  waterless  itefuds,  the  shifting  sands  of  the 
deserts  of  Central  and  Western  Arabia.  The  nar- 
row strip  of  rich  and  varied  country  at  the  east  of  the 
Mediterranean,  Syria,  was  ''  the  natural  intermedi- 
ary between  the  two  original  centers  of  culture, 
Babylon  and  Egypt.  Here  the  influences  of  East 
and  West  crossed  each  other  and  intermingled."^ 
"  For  both  Egypt  and  the  East  Syria  formed  a 
natural  thoroughfare  in  time  of  war  for  the  forces 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       383 

of  the  contending  powers,  in  time  of  peace  for  the 
trading  caravans  which  carried  on  the  interchange 
of  African  and  Asiatic  merchandise."  ^ 

History.  ''  The  Semitic  inhabitants  of  the  re- 
gion of  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates  meet  us  at  their 
very  first  appearance  in  history  as  a  settled  people, 
possessed  of  a  high  degree  of  civilization."  ^  '^  Long 
before  the  time  when  the  Jews  and  the  Greeks 
tell  us  of  the  ancient  empires  of  Asia,  Lower 
Chaldea  was  the  center  of  a  powerful  civiliza- 
tion."^ "  However  incredible  it  may  appear  that 
in  an  age  so  far  off  a  Semitic  rule — for  that  Sargon 
and  Naram-sin  were  Semites  cannot  be  denied — 
stretched  from  Elam  to  the  coasts  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean and  the  borders  of  Egypt  until  the  time  of 
Cyrus,  there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  doubting 
this  most  astounding  fact."  ^  Professor  Revillout, 
after  spreading  before  us  the  many  dealings  of  the 
firm  Ilani-irba,  Ubarsin  and  Mikraatsin  of  Warka 
(22CX)  B.C.),  and  of  Sininana,  the  banker  of  Warka, 
says  :  "  All  this  shows  us  among  the  Chaldeans  of 
Warka  in  the  23d  century  B.C.  a  fully  developed 
commercial  spirit,  an  understanding  of  the  princi- 
ples of  political  economy  which  hardly  had  its 
analogue  among  all  ancient  peoples,  except  at  a 
later  period  in  the  same  land  in  the  relatively 
modern  legislation  of  the  Babylon  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, and  perhaps  also  at  Tyre  and  Carthage, 
among  that  great  people  the  Phoenicians.""^ 

Literature.  "  It  appears  that  at  an  early  period 
in  Babylonian  history  a  great  literary  development 
took  place,  and   numerous  works  were  produced 


384  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

which  embodied  the  prevailing  myths,  reh'gion,  and 
science  of  the  day ;  Avritten,  many  of  them,  in  a 
noble  style  of  poetr}%  and  appealing  to  the  strong- 
est feelings  of  the  people  on  one  side,  or  registering 
the  highest  efforts  of  their  science  on  the  other. 
These  texts  became  the  standards  of  Babylon- 
ian literature,  and  later  generations  were  con- 
tent to  copy  them  instead  of  composing  new 
works  for  themseh^es.  Clay,  the  material  on 
which  they  were  written,  was  everywhere  abun- 
dant, copies  w^ere  multiplied,  and  the  veneration 
in  which  the  texts  were  held,  fixed  and  stereo- 
typed their  style.  Even  the  language  in  which 
they  were  written  remained  the  language  of  litera- 
ture up  to  the  period  of  the  Persian  conquest. 
Thus  it  happens  that  texts  of  Rim-agu,  Sar- 
gon,  and  Khammuragas,  who  lived  at  least  a 
thousand  years  before  Nebuchadnezzar  and 
Nabonidus,  are  composed  in  the  same  language 
as  the  texts  of  these  later  kings,  there  being  no 
sensible  difference  in  the  style  to  match  the  long 
interval  between  them."  ^ 

Art.  *'What  must  have  been  the  culture  of 
the  society  which  has  given  us  works  so  far  ad- 
vanced as  those  of  the  artists  of  Agade!  For  the 
engraved  stones  of  this  locality  and  this  epoch  sus- 
tain a  comparison  in  every  respect  with  the  most  re- 
nowned w  orks  ;  and  we  must  recognize  their  full 
merit  after  the  most  leisurely  examination  of  their 
smallest    details   under   the    magnifying   glass."  ^ 

Religion.  ''The  Semitic  Babylonians,  as  well 
as  the  other  Semites,  originally  revered  one  super- 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       385 

ior  god,  whom  they  named  simply  '  Lord  *  (Baal, 
Balu) ;  then  simply  *God'  (ilu,  el),  and  conceived 
him  as  dwelling  in  light ;  hence  they  regarded  the 
sun  as  his  chiefest  symbol.  *  *  This  service 
of  the  sun  and  stars,  altogether  different  from  the 
polytheistic  worships  of  other  nations,  on  one  side, 
spiritualized  to  the  monotheism  which  meets  us 
in  the  Old  Testament  before  Abraham  and  is  per- 
fected under  the  prophets,  on  the  other  side, 
mingled,  especially  by  the  Babylonians,  with 
Sumerian  polytheism,  brought  forth  the  result 
which  we  find  elaborated  as  the  religion  of  the 
state  in  North  Babylonia  about  1900  B.  C."  ''^ 

The  Semites  of  Babylonia  before  1300  B.  C. 
were  a  highly  cultivated  people,  of  great  commer- 
cial spirit,  with  an  art  that  was  never  surpassed  in 
Babylonia,  with  a  large  literature,  with  laws  fully 
developed,  fond  of  archives  and  possessing  those 
which  went  back  many  centuries ;  in  religion, 
partly  monotheistic  and  partly  polytheistic,  with 
an  elaborate  system  of  priesthood  and  temples; 
and  among  this  people  great  rulers  and  conquerors 
had  arisen,  who  had  before  2000  B.  C.  extended 
their  conquest  to  the  Mediterranean  coasts. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  Egypt  before  1300  B.  C. 

History. — ''  It  is  certain  that  at  least  3000 
years  before  Christ  there  was  in  Egypt  a  powerful 
and  elaborately  organized  monarchy,  enjoying  a 
material  civilization,  in  many  respects  not  inferior 
to  that  of  Europe  in  the  last  century.  Centuries 
must  have  elapsed  before  such  a  civilization  be- 
came possible.    Of  a  state  of  barbarism,  or  even  of 


386  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

patriarchal  life  anterior  to  the  monumental  period, 
there  is  no  historical  vestige.  The  earliest  monu- 
ments which  have  been  discovered  present  to  us 
the  very  same  fully  developed  civilization  and  the 
same  religion  as  the  later  monuments."  ^^  ''Its 
religion  was  established.  It  possessed  its  lan- 
guage and  written  characters.  Art  under  the  4th 
and  5th  dynasties  attained  a  height  never  sur- 
passed by  following  dynasties.  It  had,  moreover, 
a  complicated  administration — the  result  of  efforts 
pursued  through  long  years.  There  were  civil 
grades  and  religious  grades,  bishops  as  well  as 
prefects.  Registration  of  land  was  maintained. 
The  king  had  his  court,  and  a  whole  world  of 
officials,  powerfully  and  wisely  organized,  gravi- 
tated around  him.  Literature  was  held  in  honor, 
and  books  of  morals  were  composed,  some  of 
which  have  come  even  to  us."^^  ''When  the 
Egyptian  nation  enters  upon  the  scene  of  the 
world's  history  it  is  already  full  grown.  Like 
Pallas  Athena  from  the  head  of  Jupiter,  it  issues 
from  the  night  of  past  ages  fully  equipped  into  the 
light."^^  "At  that  time  [about  3000  B.  C],  long 
before  our  usual  ideas  of  the  development  of  na- 
tions, there  is  found  a  people  highly  instructed  in 
all  the  arts  of  peace ;  a  state  completely  organ- 
ized ;  a  hierarchy  firmly  founded,  minutely  divided 
and  organized  even  in  the  smallest  external  mat- 
ters ;  an  universally  diffused  system  of  writing  and 
the  common  use  of  papyrus ;  in  short  a  civiliza- 
tion which,  in  all  essential  points,  had  already  at- 
tained its  full  maturity,  and   onl}'  by  sharp  inves- 


HyPOTHES'S  OF   THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH.  387 

tigation  c.7n  the  farther  development  in  some  di- 
rections be  discovered."  '^ 

Art. — ''  Egypt,  as  she  appears  to  us  in  her  first 
creations,  ah-eady  possesses  an  art  so  advanced 
that  it  seems  the  end  rather  than  the  beginning 
of  a  long  development.  The  bas-reliefs  and  statues 
U'hich  have  been  found  in  the  tombs  and  pyramids 
of  Meidoum,  of  Sakkarah  and  of  Gizch,  are  per- 
haps the  masterpieces  of  Egyptian  sculpture,  and, 
as  Ampere  says,  "  the  pyramid  of  Cheops  is  of  all 
human  monuments  the  oldest,  the  simplest  and 
the  greatest."  ^^ 

''  When  we  go  back  to  the  beginning  of  Egyp- 
tian civilization  we  are  surprised  to  find  ourselves 
in  the  presence  of  works  of  art  more  and  more 
complete,  which  following  ages  did  not  develop."  ^^ 
"  The  Egyptians  seem  to  have  commenced  where 
other  people  left  off.  The  more  ancient  their 
works  the  more  beautiful  they  are."  ^^  ''  Every 
artistic  production  of  those  days  [4th  dynasty]  in 
picture,  writing,  or  sculpture,  bears  the  stamp  of 
the  highest  perfection  of  art."^^  ''The  art  of 
Egypt  is  art  in  the  noblest  sense  of  the  word." -"^ 

Art  under  the  i8th  and  19th  dynasties.  ''The 
sixteenth  century  B.  C,  the  age  of  Thothmes  and 
his  successors,  presents  itself  to  us  as  the  most 
perfect  bloom  of  old  Egyptian  art,  equally  grand 
in  its  conception  of  the  whole,  and  full  of  taste 
and  refinement  in  the  execution  of  the  several 
parts."  ^'^ 

Literature. — "  In  one  of  the  tombs  of  Gizch  a 
high  officer  of  the  first  period  of  the  sixth  dynasty 


388  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

takes  the  title  of  '^Governor  of  the  House  of  Books." 
This  simple  mention,  occurring  incidentally  be- 
tween two  more  exalted  titles,  suffices  (where 
others  are  wanting)  to  show  us  the  extraordinary 
development  of  Egyptian  civilization  at  that  time. 
Not  only  was  there  already  a  literature,  but  this 
literature  was  sufificiently  large  to  fill  libraries,  and 
its  importance  was  so  great  that  one  of  the  court 
officers  was  specially  designated  for  the  keeping 
of  the  royal  library."  ''  This  library  must  have 
been  composed  of  religious  works,  of  chapters  of 
the  Book  of  the  Dead,  copied  from  the  authentic 
texts  kept  in  the  temples :  of  scientific  treatises 
on  geometry,  medicine,  and  astronomy ;  of  histor- 
ical works  containing  the  sayings  and  deeds  of  the 
ancient  kings,  the  number  of  the  years  of  their 
lives  and  the  exact  length  of  their  reigns;  of 
manuals  of  philosophy  and  of  practical  ethics."  ^^ 

"There  was  formed  an  aristocracy  of  the  edu- 
cated, of  scribes,  in  whose  hands  was  the  whole 
farther  development  of  the  land."  ^^  ''  For  a  scribe 
of  talent  the  way  was  open  to  the  highest  honors 
in  the  cities  of  Pharaoh."  ^^  "  The  Egyptians  were 
fond  of  annals,  the  documents  which  were  con- 
nected with  high  antiquity.  They  studied  their 
own  origin  and  that  of  the  human  race  ;  they  ven- 
erated the  past."  ^^  ''  We  know  certainly  that 
literary  instruction  was  the  first  condition  exacted 
of  a  civil  or  military  officer.  One  must  have  the 
title  of  scribe  to  obtain  the  lowest  office  in  the 
administration  or  in  the  army.  Knowledge  led  on 
to  all."  ^     "Intellectual  life  was  developed  in  its 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       389 

full  compass ;  they  strov^c  after  moral  elevation  ; 
schools  were  established  in  the  country,  and  wis- 
dom, divine  and  human,  was  taught  in  the  colleges 
of  the  holy  servants  of  the  gods."^^  *'  The  schools 
and  places  of  instruction  were  united  with  the 
temples,  and  all  who  wished  to  obtain  office  and 
honor  must  have  received  their  education  from 
the  priests."  ^^  "  There  were  great  schools  of 
learning  which  were  in  close  connection  with 
the  temples  and  presided  over  by  priests ;  in 
which,  as  appears,  there  were  held  examinations 
of  the  ability  and  knowledge  of  the  scholars."  ^^ 
"  The  most  important  part  of  Egyptian  intellec- 
tual culture  was  the  historical  spirit  which  was 
active  and  manifest  from  the  first  in  the  learned 
priesthood."  ^  *'  To  what  nation  then  can  we 
ascribe  *  historic  sense  '  if  we  deny  it  to  the  one 
that  wrote  in  the  form  of  chronicles  and  epics  the 
names  and  deeds  of  their  kings  on  the  walls  of 
their  temples  and  graves,  that  they  might  be  read 
and  praised  by  their  latest  posterity  ;  who  covered 
their  dwellings  and  caves,  yea,  even  their  tools 
with  hieroglyphics,  in  order  that  the  name  of  the 
possessor  might  live  among  men  !  "^^ 

Religion.  As  to  the  religion  of  Egypt  many 
centuries  before  1 300  B.C.,  the  learned  are  divided 
in  opinion.  About  one-half  believe  that  mono- 
theism was  its  basis  ;  the  other  half  believe  that 
polytheism  was  its  basis.  Those  who  teach  that 
monotheism  was  the  basis  are  Brugsch,  Chabas, 
Grebaut,  Lauth,  Mariette,  Pierret,  Renouf,  Robiou, 
de  Rouge,  Tiele.     On  the  other  side  are  Ebers, 


390  Pentateuchal  Criticism, 

Erman,  Lenormant,  Lieblein,  Maspero,  Meyer, 
Reinisch,  Wiedemann. 

Mariette  says,  "  At  the  summit  of  the  Egyptian 
Pantheon  there  soared  a  god,  unique,  immortal, 
uncreated,  invisible,  and  hidden  in  the  inacces- 
sible depths  of  his  essence;  he  is  the  creator  of 
heaven  and  earth  ;  he  has  made  all  that  exists  and 
nothing  has  been  made  without  him ;  he  is  the 
god  reserved  for  him  who  is  initiated  into  the 
sanctuary.  But  Egypt  did  not  know  how,  or  was 
unwilling  to  stop  at  this  sublime  height.  She 
considered  the  world,  its  formation,  the  principles 
wdiich  govern  it,  man  and  his  destiny  on  the  earth, 
as  an  immense  drama.  The  supreme  being  is  the 
unique  actor  in  it.  Everything  procee,ds  from 
him,  and  everything  returns  to  him.  Yet  he  has 
agents  who  are  his  attributes  personified,  and  who 
become  as  many  gods  under  visible  forms,  inferior 
gods,  limited  in  their  sphere,  though  partaking  of 
all  his  characteristics."  ^^ 

Brugsch  says :  "  God,  freed  from  all  names  and 
forms,  was,  according  to  the  quoted  examples 
and  testimonies,  no  unknown  or  dark  conception 
of  the  Egyptians,  for,  from  Pyramid  times  to  that 
of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  he,  in  a  thousand 
ways,  is  the  presupposition  to  the  various  forms  of 
their  mythology.  God  is  the  pure  source  from 
which,  in  the  deep  obscurity  of  earliest  ages,  the 
great  stream  of  mythical  histories  received  its  flow, 
which  in  the  course  of  time,  like  the  Nile,  branched 
out  into  broad  arms  and  canals."  "  The  inscriptions 
which  speak  clearly  of  the  nature  of  this  one  god. 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       391 

or  the  original  spirit,  ascribe  to  him  a  scries  of 
attributes  worthy  of  the  ahnighty  creator  of 
heaven  and  earth."  ^2  -piele  says  '' That  there 
existed  a  full  conviction  of  the  unity  of  the  deity, 
even  when  he  is  called  by  various  names,  is 
proved  by  collective  names  such  as  Ra-haremchu- 
chepra,  and  other  similar  ones.  This  is,  at  least 
in  Egypt,  no  new  doctrine  resulting  from  later 
theological  speculations.  It  is  found  occurring  on 
the  very  oldest  monuments."  ^^  And  de  Rouge 
says:  ''The  unity  of  a  supreme,  self-existent 
being,  his  eternity,  omnipotence,  and  eternal 
generation  in  god  ;  the  creation  of  the  world  and 
of  all  living  beings  attributed  to  this  supreme 
god  ;  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  completed  by 
the  doctrine  of  rewards  and  penalties ;  such  is  the 
sublime  and  abiding  substance,  which,  in  spite  of 
all  deviations  and  mythological  embellishment, 
should  assure  to  the  belief  of  the  ancient  Egyp- 
tians an  honorable  rank  among  the  religions  of 
antiquity."  ''^* 

Other  scientific  archaeologists  and  historians 
make  similar  af^rmations  of  Egyptian  belief  during 
ages  anterior  to  2000  B.  C,  or  the  time  of  Abraham. 
But  when  we  turn  to  the  eighteenth  and  nine- 
teenth dynasties,  all  Egyptologists  are  in  accord 
that  monotheism  was  believed  and  was  even  estab- 
lished as  the  religion  of  the  state  for  a  short  period 
during  the  eighteenth  dynasty.  ''  The  develop- 
ment progressed  quickly  and  surely,  so  that  certain 
schools  and  classes  of  the  people,  under  the 
eighteenth    and    nineteenth  dynasties,    could   ac- 


892  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

knowledge  pure  monotheism.  It  is  thus  from 
this  period  the  doctrine  of  one  god  originates, 
and  it  is  to  the  religion  of  this  period  that  the 
characteristic  applies,  that  Le  Page  Renouf  quotes, 
after  de  Rouge,  '  God,  one,  sole  and  only  ;  no 
others  with  him.  He  is  the  only  being,  living  in 
truth.  Thou  art  one,  and  millions  of  beings  pro- 
ceed from  thee.  He  has  made  everything,  and 
he  alone  has  not  been  made.  The  clearest,  the 
simplest,  the  most  precise  conception.' "^^  **  The 
priests  in  Heliopolis,  at  about  the  same  time,  or, 
more  correctly,  a  little  earlier,  had  raised  them- 
selves to  adopt  the  doctrine  of  a  monotheistic 
god,  which  they  called  Khepera,  i.  e. :  the  god 
who  is,  who  exists ;  a  name  that  has  the  same 
derivation  and  meaning  in  the  Egyptian  language 
as  Jahwe  has  in  the  Hebrew."  ^^  **  When  mono- 
theism was  reached,  the  highest  step  in  the  con- 
ception of  the  deity  was  arrived  at."  ^  '*  One  only 
god,  w^ho  begets  himself  and  is  the  source  of  his 
own  being,  who  is  called  the  double  god,  at  once 
his  own  father  and  son,^  *  meets  us  plainly  in  the 
theological  writings  of  the  ancient  Egyptians; 
indeed,  so  densely  overcrowded  and  overshad- 
owed by  the  innumerable  and  varied  forms  of  the 
abundant  world  of  gods  of  the  Nile  valley  that 
his  existence  is  with  difficulty  grasped  and  recog- 
nized by  outsiders."  ^^ 

Ethics.  The  Egyptians,  from  the  earliest  times, 
possessed  a  highly  developed  code  of  morals,  and 
they  believed  that  this  morality  was  the  teaching 
of  their  deity,  the    only  ground    of  their  accep- 


Hypotfiesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       393 

tance  with  him  hereafter.  Tide  gives  us  a  very 
good  summary  of  the  views  of  Egyptologists : 
''A  moral  life,  a  life  of  holiness  and  beneficence, 
was  conceived  of  as  being  a  matter  of  solemn 
obligation  towards  the  deity  himself.  To  become 
like  god  Osiris,  a  benefactor,  a  good  being,  per 
secuted  but  justified,  judged  but  pronounced 
innocent,  was  looked  upon  as  the  ideal  of  every 
pious  man,  and  as  the  condition  on  which  alone 
eternal  life  could  be  obtained  and  the  means  by 
which  it  could  be  continued."  ^^  Renouf  says: 
''  The  recognized  Egyptian  code  of  morality  was 
a  very  noble  and  refined  one.  '  None  of  the 
Christian  virtues,'  Chabas  says,  '  is  forgotten  in 
it:  piety,  charity,  gentleness,  self-command  in 
word  and  action,  chastity,  the  protection  of  the 
weak,  benevolence  towards  the  humble,  deference 
to  superiors,  respect  for  property  in  its  minutest 
details,  ^  ^  all  is  expressed  there,  and 
in  extremely  good  language.'" ^^  Maspero  says: 
**  That  they  might  merit  this  blessed  destiny 
[/.  e.:  to  be  united  with  and  dwell  with  God  for- 
ever], the  Egyptians  had  compiled  a  code  of 
practical  morality,  the  articles  of  which  occur 
more  or  less  developed  on  the  monuments  of  all 
epochs,  but  the  most  complete  version  forms  the 
125th  chapter  of  the  Book  of  the  Dead."^^ 

An  Egyptian  work  on  morals,  written  long  be- 
fore 1300  B.  C,  says:  **  Do  not  intimidate  men, 
or  God  will  likewise  contend  with  thee.  If  aii}-- 
one  wishes  to  live  by  that  means  he  (God)  will 
take  the  bread  out  of  his  mouth  ;  if  anyone  wishes 


394  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

to  enrich  himself  (by  that  means),  he  (God)  says, 
I  shall  take  to  myself  these  riches  ;  if  any  one 
wishes  to  strike  down  others,  he  (God)  will  end 
by  bringing  him  to  nought.  That  none  should 
intimidate  men,  this  is  the  will  of  God."^^  ''If 
thou  art  a  wise  man  train  a  son  who  will 
be  pleasing  to  God."  ^^  The  Book  of  the  Dead, 
chapter  125,  tells  us  of  the  deceased  Avho 
"  is  reconciled  to  God  by  his  love  (or  charity). 
He  has  given  bread  to  the  hungry,  water 
to  the  thirsty,  clothing  to  the  naked."  ^^  Ani 
says :  "  Give  thyself  to  God.  Keep  thyself 
for  God  continually;  and  may  to-morrow  be  like 
to-day.  Let  thine  eye  regard  the  deeds  of  God  ; 
it  is  he  who  smites  the  smitten."  ^^  Surely  here 
is  morality  proceeding  from  God  as  its  source, 
and  imperative  on  man  because  it  is  the  will  of  God. 
This  religion  was  taught  and  symbolized  in 
temples  unparalleled  in  any  other  land  or  age 
for  grandeur,  for  extent,  for  riches,  and  for  gor- 
geous ritual.  ^'  It  is  difficult  to  get  even  an  ap- 
proximate conception  of  the  immense  range  of 
these  buildings,  of  the  truly  enormous  amount  of 
work  and  wealth  which  was  thus  expended  in  the 
service  of  the  gods."^^  "  These  riches,  increasing 
from  generation  to  generation,  had  made  the  chief 
priest  almost  as  important  a  personage  as  the 
Pharaoh.  One  might,  with  show  of  reason,  say 
that  for  him  and  him  alone  the  Egyptians  had 
undertaken  the  conquest  of  Asia."^^  ''The  rev- 
enues of  the  temples  were  exceedingly  large,  and 
were    divided    into    ordinary   and    extraordinary. 


Hypothesis  op  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       395 

To  the  ordinary  revenue  belonged,  i,  the  rent  of 
real  estate  belonging  to  the  temples,  which 
covered  one-third  of  the  land  of  Egypt ;  this  rent 
flowed  entire  into  the  treasuries  of  the  temples, 
as  temple  property  was  free  from  tax  ;  2,  a  cer- 
tain proportion  of  the  tribute  from  subject  coun- 
tries ;  3,  food,  /.  c. :  cattle,  grain  and  wine,  which 
the  country  must  deliver  to  the  temples ;  4,  the 
fees  for  the  conduct  of  worship,  but  above  all  for 
the  very  costly  funeral  ceremonies.  To  the  extra- 
ordinary belonged  the  voluntary  gifts  from  the 
king  and  the  people,  which  were  very  important  ; 
I  mention,  for  example,  only  the  custom,  almost  a 
law,  that  in  times  of  war,  before  the  regiments 
took  the  field,  large  offerings  and  gifts  must  be 
brought  to  the  gods  to  implore  their  blessing  for 
the  favorable  termination  of  the  war,  and  when 
the  victorious  army  returned  home  the  chief  part 
of  the  spoil  was  brought  to  the  gods  as  a  thank- 
offering."  ''  The  priests  could  attend  to  their 
sacred  calling  without  any  anxiety  for  their  sup- 
port. Their  chief  duties  were  the  conduct  of 
worship  and  study  of  the  sacred  writings.  The 
priests  also  formed  the  first  class  in  the  state,  and 
the  highest  hereditary  nobility  of  the  king- 
dom." ^^ 

Egypt  before  1300  B.  C,  then,  according  to  the 
multitude  of  her  scholarly  historians,  possessed  a 
high  state  of  civilization  ;  her  art  was  more  perfect 
than  ever  afterwards,  her  literature  was  lar^re, 
abundant,  accessible ;  education  Avas  the  prime 
requirement  for  advancement  in  any  department. 


396  Pextateuchal  Criticism. 

The  belief  of  a  large  number  was  in  monotheism, 
and  their  deity  expressed  his  will  in  a  morality  of 
very  pure  order,  and  Egypt  was  covered  with 
richly  endowed  and  splendid  temples,  served  by  a 
host  of  priests  in  an  elaborate  ritual. 

We  now  turn  to  the  narrow  strip  of  land,  Syria, 
between  the  Mediterranean  and  the  great  desert, 
the  only  practical  route  of  land  commerce  between 
Egypt  and  Western  Asia,  and  to  this  land  before 
1300  B.  C.  The  condition  of  this  land,  its  people, 
and  commerce  before  1300  B.  C,  has  been  most 
ably  described  by  Maspero  in  the  Revue  des 
Etudes  JuiveSy  Avril-Juin,  1887,  and  his  state- 
ments are  corroborated  by  other  eminent  his- 
torians. 

Between  Syria  and  Egypt  there  had  been  active 
intercourse  from  the  earliest  ages.  *'  The  two 
countries  were  so  near  to  each  other,  they  had  so 
many  products  and  valuables  to  exchange,  that 
the  course  of  commerce  and  of  reciprocal  invasions 
began  in  the  time  of  the  first  dynasties."  ^^  Egypt 
during  the  i8th  dynasty  held  under  its  suzerainty 
all  the  Syrian  coast.  The  numerous  small  states 
could  band  together  to  resist  some  common  en- 
emy, but  were  defeated  by  the  superior  cohesion 
and  drill  of  the  Egyptian  army.  ^'  The  country 
was  covered  with  innumerable  fortresses''^^  be- 
longing to  the  native  kings.  *'  Ascalon,  Dapur, 
Merom,  Kadesh,  were  surrounded  by  strong  walls, 
generally  built  of  stone  and  flanked  with  towers."  '^'' 
*'  Egyptian  garrisons  permanently  established  at 
Raphia,  Gaza,  perhaps  at   Megiddo,  guarded  the 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       397 

most  important  strategic  roads."  ^^  ''  Gaza,  Ascalon, 
Gerar,  Gezer,  Lydda,  Ono,  Joppa,  Megiddo,  were 
then  in  existence.  Damascus  then  commanded 
the  desert ;  Kadesh,  the  holy,  ruled  the  Orontes 
valley ;  the  Phoenician  cities.  Acre,  Tyre,  Sidon, 
Gebel,  Simyra,  Arad,  were  rich  and  populous. 
Carchemish,  Aleppo,  Batnae,  are  often  men- 
tioned."^^ '' Through  all  the  gaps  of  history  we 
obtain  the  idea  of  a  numerous,  restless,  rich  popu- 
lation.""*® "Fleets  filled  with  the  products  of 
Egypt  sailed  away  to  ports  of  Syria,  and  Phoeni- 
cian squadrons  came  up  the  Nile  to  unload  at 
Tanis  and  the  cities  of  the  Delta,  perhaps  at  Mem- 
phis. There  was  a  perpetual  coming  and  going. 
The  products  of  Central  Asia,  of  Northern  Eu- 
rope, amber  and  tin,  passed  from  hand  to  hand 
till  they  reached  the  bazaars  of  the  Syrian  cities, 
and  from  these  were  sent  to  Egypt.  The  land  of 
Canaan  was  like  a  vast  emporium  where  Africa 
met  Europe  and  Asia.  Rich  in  its  soil,  it  added 
to  its  riches  by  the  skillfulness  of  its  artisans  and 
the  daring  of  its  sailors.  We  can  thus  understand 
how  it  could  bear  the  regular  robberies  committed 
on  it  for  centuries  by  Egypt."  ^®  *' Material  civil- 
ization seems  to  have  been  nearly  equal  all  over 
the  land."^®  "There  was  hardly  anything  which 
the  Egypt  of  this  time  [i8th  and  19th  dynasty] 
had  not  obtained  from  Syria.  What  this  means 
will  appear  when  we  reflect  that  Egypt  itself  then 
possessed  a  developed  industry;  the  culture  of 
the  Syrians  must  therefore  have  been  very  highly 
advanced    to    have    obtained    such    a    conquest. 


S98  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Among  other  things  were  imported  ships,  wagons, 
arms,  walking-sticks,  musical  instruments,  drinking 
vessels,  various  liquors,  among  them  beer  and 
wine,  bread,  incense,  fish,  horses  and  cattle." '^^ 
"Silver,  white  gold,  gold,  also  slaves  and  horses, 
large  and  small  cattle,  grain,  oil,  wine,  lumber, 
ivory,  copper,  iron  and  other  metals,  unusual 
beasts,  as  bears  and  elephants,  as  well  as  wagons, 
harness,  and  all  kinds  of  furniture,  especially  costly 
vases,  were  annually  delivered  by  the  chiefs  and 
carried  to  Egypt."  ^^ 

Besides  holding  strategic  points,  we  have  the 
records  of  24  campaigns  by  the  Egyptian  army  in 
Syria  during  the  i8th  and  19th  dynasties ;  ^*^  and 
to  cement  more  firmly  their  hold  on  the  land,  and 
as  a  testimony  of  the  equality  of  the  great  Syrian 
kings  with  the  Pharaohs,  Thothmes  III.  of  the 
i8th  and  Rameses  II.  of  the  19th  dynasty  married 
Syrian  princesses.  ^^  ''An  active  culture  had  early 
been  developed  in  Syria."  ^^  "  The  people  of  the 
towns  were  very  industrious,  they  made  weapons 
and  artistic  furniture,  they  understood,  like  the 
Egyptians,  the  art  of  smelting  metals  and  of  mak- 
ing glass,  At  all  times  the  Syrians  were  cele- 
brated for  their  weaving  of  beautiful  garments 
and  of  carpets."  ^^  A  multitude  of  Egyptians  were 
in  Syria  on  public  or  private  business,  and  there 
were  also  colonies  of  Egyptian  vassals  there. 
Egyptian  temples  owned  towns  and  lands  in  Syria. 
The  roads  between  Egypt  and  Syria  were  sup- 
plied with  wells  and  protected  by  forts  well  gar- 
risoned.    Between  Egypt  and  Syria  couriers  with 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       899 

state  documents  were  constantly  passing,  and  these 
couriers  were  generally,  as  their  names  prove,  of 
Semitic  race.^^ 

There  is  a  still  further  proof  of  the  influence  of 
Syria  on  its  conquerors,  the  Egyptians,  in  the 
large  and  permanent  Semitising  of  the  Egyptian 
language.  "  In  the  literature  the  influence  of 
Syria  meets  us  everywhere.  It  became  the  fashion 
in  elegant  Egyptian  to  use  Canaanite  words ;  in 
some  writings  they  are  as  numerous  as  French 
words  in  German  books  of  the  last  century."^* 
''Thebans  of  the  i8th  and  following  dynasties 
taught  the  dialects  of  the  Canaanites  to  their  chil- 
dren, and  this  education  prepared  them  either  for 
official  service  or  for  commerce  in  other  lands."  ^^ 
In  the  maxims  of  Ani  it  is  said  "  The  negro  is 
taught  to  speak  the  language  of  the  Egyptians,  of 
the  Syrians,  and  of  all  foreign  countries."  ^^ 

Syria,  then,  before  1300  B.  C,  had  reached  the 
same  stage  of  civilization  as  Egypt,  and  in  manu- 
factures and  commerce  had  exceeded  Egypt.  It 
was  densely  populated,  rich,  and  the  emporium  of 
the  world's  commerce.  Its  Semitic  language  ap- 
peared to  the  educated  scribe  of  Egypt  so  refined 
that  he  adorned  his  pages  with  its  expressions  and 
taught  that  language  to  his  children  that  they 
might  profit  by  it  at  home  or  abroad. 

In  Chaldea,  Syria,  Egypt  before  1 300  B.  C.  we 
are  assured  that  there  was  a  high  state  of  civiliza- 
tion, art  near  perfection,  literature  of  large  extent 
and  numerous  libraries,  wide  exchange  of  com- 
merce, a  highly  developed  system  of  laws,  a  strong 


400  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

trace  of  monotheism  in  Chaldea,  and  monotheism 
united  with  a  high  morality  in  Egypt.  Whether 
the  Pentateuch  is  history  or  fiction,  is  there  any 
improbability  that  just  such  a  work  was  composed 
about  1300  B.  C,  when  both  history  and  fiction^ 
were  ardently  pursued  in  the  midst  of  the  civiliza- 
tion, religion,  literature,  art,  commerce,  which  all 
scientific  historians  tell  us  then  existed  in  Egypt, 
Syria  and  Chaldea  ? 

The  civilized  world  of  Egypt  and  Syria  had  then 
reached  its  acme  of  prosperity.  All  agree  that 
the  Pentateuch,  as  we  have  it,  is  a  book  of  undy- 
ing hope,  of  comprehensive  plans  for  the  future, 
which  it  paints  in  the  most  brilliant  colors.  Is  it 
more  rational  to  suppose  it  was  written  at  such  an 
age  as  this,  or  in  the  age  of  the  Persian  conquest, 
when  the  bloody  hand  of  the  foreigner  had  sacked 
Chaldea,  sheared  Syria  as  with  a  sharp  razor, 
strangled  Egypt,  and  smitten  them  all  again  and 
again  into  the  dust  ? 

The  Pentateuch  is  written  in  the  simplest  style 
possible,  but  is  veined  with  what  all,  but  the 
Kuenen-Wellhausen  school,  have  regarded  as  ex- 
quisite poetry.  The  49th  ch.  of  Genesis,  the  15th 
of  Exodus,  the  32d  and  33d  of  Deuteronomy  are 
poems  of  pure  and  lofty  flight,  matching  the  purity 
and  simplicity  of  the  prose.  Brugsch  says  these 
poems  correspond  to  the  Egyptian.  **  As  Moses, 
after  the  overthrow  of  Pharaoh  and  his  host  in 
the  Sea  of  Reeds,  sang  a  fervent  hymn  of  praise 
to  the  Lord,  to  exalt  the  wondrous  might  and 
streng^th  of   the    Eternal   God,  so,  three   centuries 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.        401 

before  the  wise  legislator  of  the  Jewish  people, 
did  the  now  nameless  seer  of  Amon  uplift  his 
voice  to  sing  praise,  after  his  own  fashion,  to  his 
god  and  to  his  king."^^  ''Throughout  the  poem 
[Pentaur's]  the  peculiar  cast  of  thought  of  the 
Egyptian  poet  shines  out  continually  in  all  its 
fulness,  and  confirms  our  opinion  that  the  Mosaic 
language  exhibits  to  us  an  exact  counterpart  of 
the  Egyptian  mode  of  speech."  ^^ 

Is  it  more  rational  to  suppose  this  prose  and 
this  poetry  were  written  in  the  golden  age  of 
Asiatic  and  Egyptian  literature,  or  in  the  age 
when  there  was  nothing  in  all  Asia  or  Egypt  bear- 
ing the  slightest  resemblance  to  it?  If  there  was 
any  work  like  the  Pentateuch  in  prose  or  poetr)', 
in  plan  and  hope,  in  Asia  or  Egypt  at  the  time  of 
the  Babylonian  and  Persian  conquest,  no  historian 
has  told  of  it,  no  spade  has  unearthed  it.  Then 
death  reigned  over  the  literature  of  Chaldea  and 
Syria  and  Egypt ;  their  art  was  a  machine-like 
copying  the  ancient  masterpieces,  commerce  with 
difificulty  dragged  along-  its  wounded  body,  and, 
as  to  religion,  Maspero  tersely  puts  it,  "  Chaldean 
magic  conquered  the  world  at  the  very  time  when 
Chaldea  breathed  its  last  sigh."^'^  But  we  are 
asked  to  believe  that  a  great  work,  the  Pentateuch, 
whose  "single  parts  are  so  arranged  and  united, 
joining  each  other  with  the  harmony  of  music, 
that  they  form  a  connected  and  progressive  whole," 
was  composed  by  a  band  of  selfish  priests,  in  the 
midst  of  this  death  of  literature,  and  art,  and  com- 
merce, and  religion,  surrounded  by  the  spectres  of 


403  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

a  crapulous  magic.  It  will  require  more  than 
tomes  of  strong  assertion  to  give  a  glimmer  of 
probability  to  such  a  theory,  for  it  is  contrary  to 
all  historical  facts. 

The  central  theory,  without  which  all  is  lost,  of 
those  critics  who  place  the  composition  of  the 
Pentateuch  many  centuries  after  1300  B.  C.  is 
that  there  was  a  gradual  religious  evolution  in 
Israel,  which  they  can  trace,  and  which  finally 
resulted  in  "  Ethical  monotheism,"  which  was  the 
"creation"  of  the  Israelite  prophets  not  earlier 
than  the  eighth  century  B.  C.,and  this  "creation  " 
was  an  entirely  novel  appearance  in  the  world. 
This  "  Ethical  monotheism  "  is  explained  as  the 
worship  of  one  God  in  "  heartfelt  trust  and  moral 
earnestness,"  not  as  "  the  intellectual  conviction 
of  God's  unity  and  moral  attributes."^'  But  we 
have  shown  by  a  few  quotations,  out  of  many 
more  at  hand,  that  this  sort  of  monotheism  was 
widely  known  and  even  established  as  a  state 
religion  in  Egypt  before  1300  B.  C,  that  is,  700 
years  before  its  assumed  "  creation  "  by  the  He- 
brew prophets.  From  the  dawn  of  Egyptian  his- 
tory a  strict  code  of  morality  is  referred  to  the 
deity  as  its  author,  and  acceptance  with  him  here 
and  hereafter  is  made  dependent  on  conformity 
to  this  code.  History  does  not  show  us  the  evo- 
lution of  religion  in  Chaldea  or  in  Egypt ;  like 
their  art,  its  infancy  lies  beyond  the  horizon  of 
history,  for  when  we  first  meet  their  religion  it  is 
fully  developed.^^  Science  requires  proof  by  visi- 
ble specimens.     Until   the   prehistoric  specimens 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       408 

of  the  ev^olution  of  religion  are  shown  us,  it  is 
useless  to  dream  in  a  priori  assumptions.  The 
center  post  of  this  theory,  then,  is  built  on  pure 
assumption,  against  the  abundant  testimony  of 
monuments  and  history.  But  the  monotheism  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  as  fully  corroborated  by  the 
monotheism  of  Egypt  as  its  prose  and  poetry  by 
the  prose  and  poetry  of  early  Egypt  and  Chaldea. 

Another  theory  is  that  the  ritual  laws  in  the 
Pentateuch  were  a  gradual  evolution  from  a  low 
nature  worship,  to  be  easily  traced  from  about 
looo  to  450  B.  C. 

Large  and  minute  as  are  the  ritual  laws  of 
the  Pentateuch  they  are  paralleled  by  the 
elaborate  ritual,  the  superior  position  of  the 
priest,  and  provisions  for  the  support  of  the 
priests  and  worship  in  Egypt  for  long  centuries 
before  1300  B.  C.  Established  religion  with 
richly  endowed  temples,  a  multitudinous  priest- 
hood, and  elaborate  ritual,  meets  us  in  the  first 
records  of  Chaldean  and  Egyptian  history,  and 
later  ages  in  these  lands  are  constantly  appeal- 
ing to  the  ancient  laws  and  customs  in  these 
respects.  The  ritual  laws  of  the  Pentateuch 
bear  a  closer  resemblance  to  the  ritual  of  Chal- 
dean and  Egyptian  religion  before  1300  B.  C. 
than   afterwards. 

One  cannot  fail  to  notice  how  the  chief  criterion 
for  the  division  of  documents  in  the  Pentateuch 
dissolves  at  the  touch  of  the  Egyptian  monuments. 
From  Astruc  to  the  present  time  it  has  been 
accepted    by  a    school    of   critics  as  proved  that 


404  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

"  Elohim  "  and  "Jehovah"  are  certain  marks  of 
a  difference  in  authorship.  But  the  Egyptians 
used  precisely  the  same  names  for  the  deity,  and, 
besides  these,  called  the  same  deity  by  a  great 
variety  of  names.  To  carry  this  assumed  mark 
of  division  of  authorship  into  Egyptian  docu- 
ments would  be  ridiculous  beyond  words.  Pro- 
fessor Dillmann,  of  one  wing  of  the  same  school, 
accuses  the  Graf-Kuenen  wing  of  first  imagining, 
a  priori,  a  gradual  religious  evolution  in  Israel, 
and  then,  on  this  basis,  endeavoring  to  determine 
the  sequence  of  documents  combined  in  the 
Hexateuch.  Professor  Kuenen®*  replies  that 
Dillmann  does  the  precisely  same  thing  ;  and  that 
if  one  is  not  to  accept  the  history  as  given  in  the 
Old  Testament,  it  is  impossible  to  follow  any 
other  method.  Both  these  critics  are  here  in 
exact  accord  with  the  facts  respecting  each  other. 
If  we  are  not  to  accept  the  history  as  given  in 
the  Old  Testament,  with  all  the  corroboration  of 
it  by  the  monuments,  we  must  enter  the  land  of 
dreams,  and  one  dream  in  history  is  as  valid  as 
another. 

The  Pentateuch  is  crowded  with  minute  details 
of  customs,  of  geography,  of  private  relations,  all 
given  in  the  easy  flow  of  narrative,  and  everywhere 
showing  an  intimate  knowledge  of  Chaldea,  Syria, 
and  Egypt.  Closely  as  these  lands  were  connected 
by  commerce,  yet  they  differed  in  customs  and  in 
geography,  as  Germany,  France  and  Spain  differ. 
An  accurate  statement  of  the  beliefs,  customs, 
geography,   of   a   country    is   one    of   the    rarest 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       405 

attainments  of  the  best  of  historians  now,  even 
when  treating  of  his  own  or  times  near  his  own. 
When  an  ancient  narrative  is  found  severely- 
accurate  in  its  woof  of  customs  and  geography, 
historical  students  know  that  it  is  one  of  the 
strongest  possible  proofs  of  contemporaneous- 
ness. 

Now  Egyptologists  and  Assyriologists  find  and 
use  the  close  parallels  between  the  Egyptian 
and  Chaldean  customs  and  geography  and  the 
Pentateuch  statements  of  them.  Lenormant  says: 
The  narrative  of  the  Exodus  "  bears  unmistak- 
able marks  of  historical  truth  and  agrees  most 
happily  with  the  state  of  things  at  the  time  of 
Merenptah."^^  Meyer  says:  "The  narrative  of 
the  Exodus  of  the  Hebrews  rests  upon  certain 
knowledge  of  the  region  of  Succoth  and  its 
border  fortresses."  *^^  Wiedemann  says  :  "  The 
descriptions  of  the  relations  of  both  lands  (Egypt 
and  Syria)  are  very  minute.  In  all  these  places 
we  find  a  sure  knowledge  of  Egyptian  affairs  as 
well  in  geographical  points  as  in  the  description 
of  private  relations." '^'^  Ebers  says:  '' This  nar- 
rative [Gen.  12;  10  ff.]  is  real  Egyptian. "^^ 

For  a  hundred  years  it  has  been  a  commonplace 
with  a  certain  line  of  critics  to  deny  all  historical 
accuracy  to  Gen.  14,  the  account  of  Elamite 
(Chaldean)  supremacy  over  the  Syrian  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah.  Every  successive  critic  of  that 
school  from  Astruc  to  Wellhausen  has  slain  his 
man  of  straw.  Now  Assyriology  rises  up  with  its 
undeniable  numerous  monuments  to  declare  just 


406  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

that  chapter  true  to  life.  ^^  The  tenth  chapter 
of  Genesis  has  been  wrought  over  and  over  in 
the  interest  of  denial  by  some  critics,  but  Lepsius, 
approaching  it  from  the  side  of  archaeology  says: 
*'  Where  we  find,  as  in  this  list  of  nations,  on  the 
whole  so  correct  a  knowledge  of  peoples  and 
their  languages  which  we  can  still  in  large  part 
decide  upon,  we  must  also  in  particulars  concede 
great  Aveight  to  its  statements."'^  And  Pinches 
says :  **  Though  the  beginnings  of  the  Assyrian  and 
Babylonian  empires  are  lost  in  obscurity,  and  no 
records  exist,  among  the  people  themselves,  ac- 
counting for  their  origin,  yet  the  account  given  in 
the  Bible  agrees  so  well  with  what  is  known  from 
the  records,  that  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt 
that  in  it  there  is  a  true  history  of  the  rise  of 
those  two  nations,  which  were  in  after  time  to 
wield  the  power  of  the  then  known  world.  This 
Biblical  account,  borne  out  and  amplified  as  it  is 
by  the  late  discoveries,  forms  one  of  the  most 
interesting  and  instructive  links  of  the  history  of 
the  human  race  and  its  progress  in  civilization.""^ 
So  long  as  the  hosts  of  Egyptian  and  Chaldean 
monuments  corroborate  the  Pentateuch  state- 
ment of  customs,  so  long  as  the  very  ground  of 
Chaldea,  Syria  and  Egypt  proves  the  exactness  of 
the  Pentateuch's  minute  geography,  the  date  of 
the  Pentateuch  cannot  be  moved  by  any  sound 
historical  reason.  By  the  universal  canon  of 
historical  criticism  these  minutiae  stamp  its  date 
indelibly  upon  it.  They  are  facts  that  never  yet 
have  been  successfully  forged,  because  it  is  simply 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       407 

beyond  the  power  of  man  to  impose  them  upon 
others. 

Some  critics  suppose  the  Pentateuch  is  a  com- 
pilation of  myths,  and  oral  traditions  encased  in  a 
history  manufactured  for  a  selfish  purpose  by 
priests  during  the  Babylonian  and  Persian  con- 
quests, 700 — 900  years  after  the  events  described. 
Defiant  of  accuracy  in  all  other  respects,  these 
compilers,  we  are  told,  in  their  age  when  accuracy 
was  not  a  virtue,  made  careful  study  of  the  cus- 
toms and  geography  of  the  far  off  times  they 
embellished  with  their  manufactured  history. 
Can  any  calm  brain  accept  such  a  theory  in  the 
face  of  the  facts?  No  wonder  Wellhausen  sees 
"  God-forsaken  dreariness  "  in  the  accounts  of  the 
scientific  historians  of  Egypt. 

If  the  date  of  the  Pentateuch  is  embedded  in 
its  accurate  statements  of  public  customs,  private 
relations  and  geography,  the  further  query  is,  Was 
it  the  work  of  one  or  of  many  writers?  If  w^e  sup- 
pose one  writer  of  superior  ability,  of  thorough 
education,  of  great  opportunity  for  learning  the 
customs  and  geography  of  the  peoples  and  lands 
described,  we  are  in  accord  with  the  canons  of 
historical  criticism.  If  we  suppose  two  writers 
of  the  same  date  equally  eminent  in  all  these 
points,  we  have  one  of  the  rarest  coincidences  in 
all  history.  If  we  suppose,  with  some  critics, 
twenty  and  more'^  writers  and  editors  none  of 
whom  ever  make  an  error  in  the  customs  and 
geography  of  an  age,  700 — 900  years  before  their 
time,  we  suppose  against  the  canons  of  historical 


408  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

criticism,  a  more  astounding  miracle  than  any 
reported  in  the  Bible.  A  theory,  to  account  for 
the  origin  of  a  book,  which  can  be  sustained  only 
by  astounding  miracles  by  self-seeking  men  is  by 
that  fact  out  of  court  in  sound  historical  criticism. 
If  minute  accuracy  is  the  criterion,  then  historical 
criticism  assures  us  that  it  is  due  to  one  master 
hand. 

I  conclude  therefore  that  historical  criticism 
on  the  broadest  lines,  guided  by  the  numerous 
monuments  as  interpreted  by  the  most  able  inves- 
tigators of  the  present  day,  must  place  the  com- 
position of  the  Pentateuch  contemporaneous  with 
the  events  of  the  last  four  books,  and  must  ascribe 
its  composition  to  one  master  hand. 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       409 


NOTES. 


In  these  notes  the  contractions  are — 
A  ==  Ancient,  ancienne,  or  alt. 
Ae  =  Aegypten,  Aeg-yptische. 
E  =  Egypt,  Egyptian,  Egypte,  Egyptien. 
G  =  Geschichte. 

H  =  History,  histoire,  historique. 
K  =  Kouyunjik. 
M  =  Monuments. 
R  =  Religion. 

The  works  referred  to  are  the  last  editions,  and  the 
numbers  are  those  of  the  page.  With  the  exception  of  de 
Rouge,  Rituel  Fiuieraire,  1860,  none  of  the  works  are 
twentj''-five  years  old,  and  two-thirds  have  been  published 
within  ten  years. 


1.  H.  A.,712. 

2.  Meyer,  G.  d.  a.  Ae.,  227. 

3.  Socin,       Encycl.      Brit. 

"Palestine,"  174. 

4.  Hommel,       Babyl.       u. 

Assyr.,  262. 

5.  Menant,  Recherches  sur 

laGlyptiqueOrientale, 
t.  i.,  4. 

6.  Tiele,  Babyl.  Assyr.  G., 

Il3f. 

7.  Obligations  en  Droit  E. 

Sur  le  Droit  d.l.  Chal- 
deeetc,  275-327. 
Also, 
Oppert  et  Menant,  Doc. 
Jurid.  etc.,  5. 


Oppert,  Grande  Encycl. 

"  Baby  I  one." 
Pinches     Guide    to    K. 

Gallery,  7. 
SayceHibbertLect,  18f. 

8.  Smith,     Chaldean     Ac- 

count of  Genesis,  17. 
Also, 

Menant,  Bibliotheque  de 
Ninive,  30,  93,  121. 

Sayce,  Herodotos,  368f. 
*'       HibbertLect.29f. 

Boscawen,  Brit.  Mus. 
Lect.  "Chaldean  Li- 
braries," 140f. 

9.  Menant,  Recherches  etc., 

t.  1.,  257f. 


410 


Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


Also, 
Horn m el,  Semit.  Volker, 

212-233. 
PeiTot  and  Chipiez,   H. 

of  Art  in  Chaldea.  V. 

ii,  251fT. 
Heuzey,  Revue  Archeol. 

1882,   277;    1886,   198, 

306;  1887,  258f. 
de  Sarzec,    Decouvertes 

en  Chaldee,  48,  64f. 
Pinches,     Guide    to     K. 

Gallery,  7,  40. 
Pinches,     Trans.    Socj', 

Bibl.  Archly,  v.  8,  351. 
Sayce,  A.  Empires,  163f. 

10.  Hommel,  Bab.  u.  Assyr. 

265. 
Also, 

Schrader,  Jabrb.  f.  Prot. 
Theol.  1875,  123. 

Delitzsch,    Wo    lag    d. 
Paradies,  164f. 

Boscawen,  "Sheol." 

Sayce,  HibbertLect.,  19. 

Menant,  Bibl.  d.  Ninive, 
112. 

Lenormant,      Chaldean 
Magic,  ch.  5. 

Lenormant,  Prem.  Civil- 
isations, t.  2,  84ff. 

11.  Renouf,  R.  of  E.  81f. 

12.  Mariette,  Gallerie  d.  I'E. 

27. 

13.  Tiele,  H.  of  E.  R.  6. 

14.  Lepsius,  Brockhaus  Lex. 

''Ae."  254. 
Also, 
Naville,    Litterature    d. 
I'a.  E.  8. 


Lenormant,  H.   A.  t.  ii, 

97,  t.  iii,  36. 
Lefebure,  E.  A.  29. 
Maspero,  H.  A.  99f. 
On  XVIIIth  and  XlXth 

Dyn. 
Mariette,  Aper(;u  d.  I'H. 

etc.,  35. 
Lenormant,  H.  A.  t.  ii, 

190. 
Maspero,  Genre  Episto- 

laire,  43f. 
Maspero,  H.  A.  228f, 
Naville,     Ae.      Todten- 

buch,  Einleitung,  25. 
Lauth,  Ae.  Vorzeit,  281. 

15.  Perrot  and  Chipiez,   H. 

of  Art  in  A.  E.  v.  ii, 
404,  also  v.  i,  89,  189. 
214,  283. 

16.  Soldi,  L'Art  E.  31. 

17.  Blanc,     Voyage     d.      1. 

Haute  E.,  308f. 

18.  Brugsch,  H.  of  E.  v.  i,96. 

19.  Brugsch,  H.  of  E.    v.   1, 

204. 
Also, 

Maspero,  Miss.  Archeol. 
Fr.  au  Caire,  1885, 
241. 

Maspero,  Archeol.  of  E, 
170,  203f. 

Wiedemann,  Ae.  G.  56, 
59. 

Fergusson,  H.  of  Archi- 
tecture v.  1,  62,  92, 
106,  132. 

Flinders-Petrie,  Pyra- 
mids **  of  Gizeh,  176, 
213. 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.       411 


Mariette,  Gallerie  d.  I'E. 

A.  27. 
Ebers,  Ae.  v.  ii,  52-56. 
Lenormant,  H.  A.  t.  ii, 

80,  96,  134f. 
Renouf,  R.  of  E.  68. 
Rhone,  L'E.    a    Petites 

Journees,  69,  87. 
«0.  Bru£:sch,H.  E.  v.  1.  481, 

v.^ii.  37. 
Also, 
Mariette,  M.  of  Upper  E. 

148ff. 
Tiele,  E.  R.  146,  170. 
Fergusson,    H.     Archi- 
tect. V.  1,  118f. 
Ebers,  Ae.  v.  ii,  305fT. 
Meyer,    G.    d.    a.    Aeg. 

118,  124. 
Maspero,  H.  A.  205. 
de  Rouge,  Notice  d.  M. 

*  *  au  Louvre,  20. 
Blanc,    Voyage     d.     1. 

Haute  E.  219f. 

21.  Maspero,  H.  A.  69-79. 

22.  Meyer,  G.  Aeg.  56. 

23.  Brugsch,  H.  E.  66. 

24.  Naville,  Litt.  d.  la.   E. 

lOf. 
Also, 
de  Rouge,  Origine  E.  d. 

I'Alphabet  Phenicien, 

103ff. 
de  Rouge,  Notice  d.  M.  4. 
de  Rouge,  M.  *  *  aux  six 

prem.  Dyn.  43. 
Erman,  Ae.  59. 
Chabas,  Aiitiquites  H.  9. 
Lenormant,  H.  A.  t.  ii, 

68. 


Tiele,  E.  R.  21  ff. 

25.  Maspero,  Genre  ]fep.  25. 

26.  Brugsch,  H.  E.  v.  1.  200. 

27.  Wiedemann,  Ae.  G.  42. 

28.  **  Ae.  G.  62. 
Also, 

Maspero,  Genre  fip.  25f, 

48. 
Erman,  Ae.  722f. 
Lenormant,  H.  A.  t.  ii, 

127. 
Renouf,  E.  R.  78. 
Naville,  Litt.   d.  Fa.   E. 

lOf. 
Virey,    Papyrus  Prisse, 

8f. 
Chabas,     Maximes     du 

Scribe  Ani,  215ff. 

29.  Lepsius,         Brockhaus, 

Lex.  "Ae."     252. 

30.  Ebers,  Ae.  u.  d.  B.  Mosis, 

IX. 

31.  Notice  d.  principaux  M. 

19f. 

32.  R.    u.    Mythologie  d.  a. 

Ae.     90r. 

33.  E.  R.     82. 

34.  de  Rouge,   Etude  sur  1. 

Rituel  Funeraire,  8. 
Also, 
Robiou,     Croyances    d. 

I'E.  etc.  1-11. 
Chabas,    Calendrier    d. 

Jours,  107. 
Chabas,  Antiq.  H.   150. 
Pierret,     Pantheon      E. 

ivf. 
Renouf,  E.  R.     92,    103, 

251  f. 
Lauth,  Ae.  Vorzeit,  39f. 


41: 


Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


Grebaut,  Hymne  a  Am- 
mon-Ra,  97fT. 

35.  Lieblein,  E.  R.  18-21. 

36.  Ebers,     Durch     Gosen, 

541. 
Also, 
Reinisch,   Ursprung  *  * 

d.  Ae.    Priestei-tums, 

29. 
Maspero,    H.    A.       28f, 

278. 
Lenorraant,  H.  A.  t.  iii, 

224. 
Wiedemann,  Ae.  G.   46. 
El-man,  Ae.     354ff. 
Meyer,  G.  d.  a.  Ae.    249. 
Tiele,  E.  R.    146. 

37.  E.  R.     230. 

38.  R.  of  E.  72,  79. 

39.  H.  A.     38. 

40.  Virey,  Pap.  Prisse,    40f, 

51. 

41.  Pierret,  Livre  d.  Morts, 

377. 

42.  Cliabas,  Max.  d.  *  *  Ani 

217. 

43.  Meyer,  G.  d.  a.  Ae.  252. 

44.  Maspero,    H.  A.  p.  208f. 

45.  Reiniscli,  Ursprung"  *  * 

Ae.Priestertums,  32f. 
Also, 
Erman,  Ae.     403ff. 
Chabas,  Recherches  *  * 

d.  1.  xixe  Dyn. 
Records  of  the  Past,    v. 

vi,  21ff.  V.  viii,  5ff. 
Ebers,    Ae.    *  *    Mosis, 

343  fT. 
Pierret,  Ae.  Zeitschrift, 

1879,  137. 


Lemm,    Ritual    d.    Am- 

mondienstes,  2ff. 
Mariette,   M.    Upper  E. 

5ff. 
Mariette,  Abydos,  pt.  1, 

34-76. 
Maspero,     Archaeology, 

152. 

46.  Revue  d.  Etudes  Juives, 

Avril-Juin,  1887. 

47.  Maspero,     Archaeology, 

27. 

48.  Erman,  Ae.  681. 

49.  Meyer,  G.  d.  a.  Ae.,  242. 

50.  "        '*        "        240f. 
283ft'. 

51.  Wiedemann,  Ae.  G.  349. 

52.  Meyer,  G.  d.  a.  Ae.  227f. 

240-248,  298f. 

53.  Erman,  Ae.  709. 

Also, 
Brugsch,    H.    E.    v.     i, 

236ff,  336ff,  386tt-,  402flf. 

V.  ii,  131. 
Maspero,  Genre  Ep.  43. 

H.  A.  190ff. 
Palestine    Expl.     Fund 

Quarterly,  1876,  56-72; 

1884,  4-15,  57-61. 
Ebers,  Durch  Gosen,  87, 

234,  528. 
Leiblein,       Handel      u. 

Scliiffahrt,  38ff. 
Tiele,  E.  R.  146. 

54.  Meyer,  G.  Ae.  298. 

55.  Maspero,     Rev.    Etudes 

Juives. 

56.  p.  219. 

57.  Naville,  Litt.  *  *  6.  7. 

Also, 


Hypothesis  of  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuc 


413 


Brugsch,     H.   E.    v.    ii, 

137. 
Lenormant,   H.  A.  t.  ii, 

130. 
Tiele,  E.  R.  146. 
Maspero,  Contes  Popu- 

laires,  Introduction. 

58.  Brugsch,  H.  E.  v.  i,  412. 

59.  "  "V.  ii,  55. 

60.  H.  A.  676. 

61.  Kuenen,  Prophets,  585, 

589. 

62.  de  Rouge,     Conference 

sur  la  Religion,  13. 
Lefebure,    My  the     Osi- 

rien,  5. 
Pierret,     Pantheon      E. 

ivf. 
Renouf,  E.  R.  91. 

63.  Numeri  *  *  Josua,  597. 


64.  Theol.  Tijdschrift,  1888, 

34. 
Also, 
Revue  d.  I'H.  d.  R.  1888, 
113. 

65.  H.  A.  t.  ii,  293. 

66.  G.  Ae.  297. 

67.  Ae.  G.  99. 

68.  Ae.  *  *  Mosis.   262. 

69.  Honiniel,  Babyl.  u.   As- 

syr.  9.  150,  161f. 
Brown,         Assyriologj", 
51f. 

70.  Nubische     Graniniatik, 

xcivf. 

71.  Guide  to  K.  Gallery,   3. 

72.  Wellhausen,  makes  out 

22  autliors  and  edi- 
tors; Kuenen  maker 
out  18  at  least. 


DATE  DUE 

^^^SfitiA.^ 

"'^f^SK 

M. 

gcti** 

*W 

CAYUOND 

^niNTEOINU.S.A 

